Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

MEDWAY TUNNEL BILL [ Lords]

Order for consideration read.

To be considered tomorrow.

PORT OF TYNE BILL [Lords]

Order for Second Reading read.

To be read a Second time tomorrow.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND

Health Boards

Mr. Nigel Griffiths: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what are his criteria for appointments to health boards in Scotland.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Malcolm Rifkind):: Individuals are appointed on the basis of the contribution that they can make to the duties and responsibilities of the health boards.

Mr. Griffiths: Does not the Secretary of State realise that the cuts and panic closures affecting hospitals in Lothian region made by the right hon. and learned Gentleman's Tory-appointed health board are an indictment of his system of appointment? Will he come with me to Longmore hospital in Edinburgh, where an excellent breast screening clinic and facilities for geriatric patients are threatened by a panic closure in eight weeks rather than in eight years? Will the Secretary of State give an assurance that Lothian health board will receive proper funding—or will he go?

Mr. Rifkind: I share the hon. Gentleman's anxiety to ensure that the health board's recommendations are considered on the basis of their implications for health care in the region. The hon. Gentleman should not suggest that the problem has been caused by underfunding. As he knows perfectly well, all Scottish health boards are funded in exactly the same way. The fact that Lothian finds itself to be seriously overspending is clearly a result of its own internal financial management—as the report now published by Peat, Marwick Mitchell clearly demonstrates.

Mr. Kirkwood: Will the Secretary of State guarantee that if health board appointments become more business oriented, as is presaged in the White Paper, he will pay particular attention to the successor bodies to the health

councils, to ensure that they are properly funded and properly accountable, so that effective patient and consumer consultation boards can be established within the Health Service?

Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman makes a reasonable point. We shall certainly want to ensure that the boards offer the widest breadth of experience, consistent only with the important criterion of avoiding any conflict of interest between those who serve on health boards and those who have financial associations with the provision of health care.

Mr. Marlow: If Scottish health boards were to be financed and paid for by a Scottish Parliament or Assembly that raised taxes in Scotland, as opposed to being funded by the general Exchequer, what would be the increase in the taxes due from Scottish people?

Mr. Rifkind: If there were to be a Scottish Assembly and it had to fund Scottish health provision entirely from Scottish resources, there is no doubt that that would lead to a substantial increase in the amount of income tax paid by people in Scotland. Health expenditure in Scotland is about 25 per cent. higher per capita than that south of the border.

Mr. Galbraith: Surely ultimate responsibility for the current shambles in Lothian health board rests directly with the Secretary of State for Scotland. Is not the crisis due to the sheer and utter incompetence of the board members—all of whom were directly appointed by the Secretary of State, and half of whom have either direct or indirect connections with the Conservative party? Is not it the case that unless increased funding is made available to Lothian health board, the crisis will be resolved only by the Secretary of State reneging on his promises, closing hospitals and introducing measures that will directly affect patient care?

Mr. Rifkind: The Government have already been helpful with regard to the problems of Lothian health board by saying that it will not be required to pay for last year's overspend in the current year, but it is crucial that the health board, like all other health boards in Scotland, should gain control over its expenditure and resources. The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that if he were speaking from this Dispatch Box, he would be the first to insist that all health boards in Scotland commit themselves to no more expenditure than the resources provided to them. If Lothian is the only health board in Scotland to have found itself in this difficulty, clearly that is a result of financial mismanagement within the health board.

Scottish Homes

Mr. McAllion: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he last met the chairman of Scottish Homes; and if he discussed the current levels of capital spending on housing by the agency in Scotland.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton): My right hon. and learned Friend and I regularly meet Sir James Mellon, chairman of Scottish Homes. Our discussions cover all aspects of Scottish Homes' functions and responsibilities.

Mr. McAllion: The Minister promised the tenants of Scottish Homes that there would be no element of


compulsion in moving them into other types of tenure. Does he now accept that the latest investment priorities declared by Scottish Homes, stating that it is its intention to invest in every other type of tenure before investing in its own stock and tenants, are tantamount to blackmail—trying to force them into other types of tenure? Does not that mean that effectively the Minister has reneged on his promise to tenants of Scottish Homes; is not he ashamed of himself; and should not he reverse those investment priorities or tender his own resignation?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The hon. Gentleman is incorrect on that subject. Funding for Scottish Homes' budget this year is some £356·5 million. I understand that the hon. Gentleman is primarily concerned with the project in, Fintry, which was delayed because of apprehensions expressed by some of his constituents. I believe that the estate-based strategy is being worked out and is likely to go ahead. Specific projects have begun or will begin shortly and other projects are under consideration as part of the continuing process of developing plans for the area. I shall draw the point that the hon. Gentleman has made to the attention of the chairman of Scottish Homes, but I stress to him that our commitment to upgrading Scottish Homes' stock remains as strong as ever.

Mr. Allan Stewart: When my hon. Friend next meets the chairman of Scottish Homes, will he discuss with him the importance of its work in the regeneration of Barrhead in my constituency? Is he aware that following the welcome announcement on industrial improvement areas by my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Renfrew district council, in co-operation with other public sector agencies and the private sector, is preparing imaginative but realistic plans for the future of Barrhead? In encouraging Scottish Homes to clear the path and to implement plans, will my hon. Friend also take the opportunity to point out to Opposition Members that the greatest threat to the improvement of the quality of housing in Scotland would be a roof tax?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I agree with what my hon. Friend says about a roof tax, because it would swallow up a large part of the income of people who have bought their council house. Scottish Homes is now studying a consultancy report that considers the future of Barrhead. Housing is one aspect of the regeneration proposals. Scottish Homes will need to judge how best its involvement in this important project can complement other economic objectives of the Scottish Development Agency, the region and the district.

Mr. Ron Brown: Is not it a disgrace that the Government have conned people into buying so-called homes when the Minister and Scottish Homes know that in my area those properties were largely slums? A court case is being heard at the moment, and probably the Minister will argue that he cannot comment on that. Nevertheless, we still have tenants who want repairs to their homes, which they are not getting because Scottish Homes is hiding behind the law, the capitalist system and this Government. What has the Minister got to say to people in Leith who deserve support, repairs and justice? Will he give them that, because they need it?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The hon. Gentleman has raised that matter with me before, on behalf of his

constituents. Tenants have applied for improvement grants to the district council, but they are some way down the queue of priorities. The pre-1984 backlog of improvement grants is being worked off quickly. The matter is a responsibility of the district council, but it does not have sufficient priority at present.

Mr. Brown: What is the Minister doing about the plight of tenants, as well as people who foolishly bought their slum houses?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: If the hon. Gentleman is referring to tenants of Scottish Homes, I shall of course draw the matter to the attention of the chairman. I should be grateful if the hon. Gentleman made it perfectly clear which streets he is talking about.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Brief questions lead to briefer answers and more hon. Members are then called.

Higher Education

Mr. Nicholas Bennett: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on measures to protect freedom of speech in institutions of Scottish higher education.

The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Mr. Ian Lang): Following our earlier undertaking to consider the position in Scotland, we have decided to consult interested parties on arrangements for safeguarding freedom of speech in universities and colleges in Scotland, in the light of which we shall consider whether any action is necessary.

Mr. Bennett: Does my hon. Friend recall the promise that was made on 20 June 1989 at column 268 in answer to a debate that I initiated on freedom of speech in Scottish universities and polytechnics—that the review would take place in six to nine months? As a year has now gone by, when can we expect the results of that review?

Mr. Lang: I recall the debate and the undertaking that was given, which was to consider the position in Scotland in the light of the review of the legislation, in particular section 43 of the Education (No. 2) Act 1986 as it affects England and Wales. That review is still under way. We shall obviously wish to take account of the outcome of that review when considering the position in Scotland. However, I hope that my hon. Friend welcomes the commitment that I have just given.

Mr. Watson: What advice does the Minister expect to give to regional councils that have been led to understand, although they have not yet been informed, that the technical and vocational education initiative is to be slashed by 50 per cent. in the coming year? What involvement did the Scottish Office have in the discussions and what advice does the Minister of State intend to give to regional councils whose preparations are well advanced for the training of young people in the coming academic year?

Mr. Lang: Some rephasing of the forward extension of TVEI is taking place. I welcome the £1·8 million that my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Employment has announced for the extension of TVEI. However, that has nothing whatever to do with freedom of


speech, which is the subject of this question. I wish that the Opposition would spend more time on upholding freedom of speech rather than abusing it.

Mr. Dewar: Does the Minister accept that this is a serious matter and that I regret the fact that there appears to have been a shift in the Government's position? He will remember that the Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth), made it clear on 7 June 1989 that
there was little evidence in Scotland of the problems that prompted the legislation south of the border."—[Official Report, 7 June 1989; Vol. 154, c. 210.]
and led to the imposition of section 43 in England. I recognise that recently there was one deplorable incident at Glasgow university, but that was very much a case of rent-a-crowd. Does the Minister accept that if the law were to be changed on the basis of such a demonstration, it would delight those who are responsible for trouble, but it would be a sad day indeed for university freedoms in Scotland?

Mr. Lang: It is because the situation in Scotland was different that we did not follow our English colleagues down the road of section 43. However, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would wish us to fulfil our commitment to reconsider the matter and therefore to hold consultations. I hope that he will also support Conservative Members when we say that freedom of speech is vital. If, as Disraeli said, a university should be a place of light, liberty and learning, it can be none of those things unless freedom of speech is upheld.

Mr. John Marshall: Does my hon. Friend agree that those who seek to silence those with whom they disagree demonstrate their own unsuitability for higher education? Does he further agree that university authorities ought to adopt a more robust attitude toward those who behave in such a disruptive way?

Mr. Lang: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. I am glad that a number of universities are looking at their codes of practice and their codes of discipline to ensure that freedom of speech is upheld in our universities.

Local Government Finance

Mr. Canavan: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what recent representations he has received seeking changes in the poll tax legislation; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Rifkind: I regularly receive representations about different aspects of the community charge.

Mr. Canavan: Is not the Secretary of State ashamed of the fact that he offered the people of Scotland as poll tax guinea pigs, that there was not a whimper of protest from Tory Members of Parliament during the first year of the Scottish poll tax, but that when the poll tax hit England and Wales it met with a storm of protest and the Prime Minister was forced to think again? If the Secretary of State is to avoid the accusation of being a silent stooge in the Cabinet, will he speak up and tell the Prime Minister that a few pussy-footed amendments will not satisfy the people of Scotland who are demanding the abolition of this evil tax?

Mr. Rifkind: I remind the hon. Gentleman that the poll tax applies throughout the United Kingdom——

Mr. John D. Taylor: No, not throughout the United Kingdom; only Great Britain.

Mr. Rifkind: The right hon. Gentleman is quite right to correct me with regard to Northern Ireland. The poll tax applies throughout Great Britain, unlike Labour's roof tax. We have yet to see whether the hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan), who feels so strongly about these matters, wishes to impose on Scotland alone a roof tax, which the hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (M r. Galloway) has attacked and which has been attacked by the Scottish Labour party. The Leader of the Opposition has said that he certainly would not wish to impose it south of the border. The Labour party needs to address itself to that.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Will my right hon. and learned Friend acknowledge that it is better to address particular anomalies that emerge in relation to the tax rather than necessarily the tax itself? Does he recognise that there are several anomalies affecting merchant seamen, those who spend a considerable part of the year overseas and some holiday homes, and that individual community charge payers have had to take matters to the courts for a decision? That course of action is not open to every individual. Will my right hon. and learned Friend therefore make sure that the legislation is amended appropriately to deal with those specific anomalies?

Mr. Rifkind: We shall naturally look sympathetically at any constructive suggestions. There have already been important changes to the standard charge, which meet some of the points raised by my right hon. Friend'. However, most of the examples to which he referred involve classification, when the community charge registration officer in one part of the country may have acted in a different way from the community charge registration officer in another area. In precisely those circumstances an appeal to the courts is a way of ensuring uniformity and fairness of treatment throughout the country.

Jobs, Glasgow

Mr. David Marshall: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what special measures he intends taking to create jobs in the east end of Glasgow.

Mr. Lang: Jobs are created by market forces, not by Governments. However, the Government continue to support a number of initiatives in the east end of Glasgow, including the provision of business advice and training, with the aim of stimulating and protecting employment in the area.

Mr. Marshall: Is the Minister totally ignorant—[HON. MEMBERS: "Yes."]—of the fact that four of the seven constituencies with the highest unemployment in Scotland cover the east end of Glasgow? Does not he realise that the problem cannot be solved without special Government assistance? Just when will he do something about it? His reply is disgracefully inadequate. We are sick and tired of promises, press releases and cosmetic exercises. Just when will the Minister and his colleagues in Government realise that the people of Scotland and of Glasgow want the same job opportunities as people in London and the south of England? Can he tell the House when that day will come?

Mr. Lang: It seems to me that the hon. Gentleman, if not ignorant, is at least blind to the success of Government policies in Glasgow as elsewhere. In the past three years unemployment in Glasgow has fallen by no less than 29,000. In the hon. Gentleman's own constituency, unemployment stood at 7,000 in January 1987, but is now down to 4,500. He also should know that the Government are giving considerable support through the SDA to the East End Executive and that through the SDA there have been a number of projects to the value of £6 million in Shettleston. In those and other ways the Government are helping to assist the development of enterprise and employment in the east end of Glasgow.

Mr. Oppenheim: Will my hon. Friend give a warm welcome to the statement made by the chief Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar), when he said on Radio 4 on 28 May that Scotland does very well out of central Government funding and remains substantially funded from England? While it may be a little premature for the hon. Member for Garscadden to start talking as if he were a Minister, is not his change of heart very welcome?

Mr. Lang: My hon. Friend is probably right. It is true that certain parts of Scotland get special help from the Government, as do certain parts of England, including the north-east and the north-west. That help is given because it is needed to generate employment and enterprise in areas of severe dereliction and difficulty. It is evidence of the success of Government policies in Glasgow that unemployment there has fallen by 29,000 over the past three years.

Mr. Michael J. Martin: The Minister will know that in my constituency, in the Dennistoun area of the east end of Glasgow, more than 550 jobs in the tobacco industry have to go. Does he agree that it is a sad day when any industry that has increased its productivity and has good industrial relations and whose workers have worked there for generations finds that when Lord Hanson takes over a company, he strips the assets and closes factories? Surely the Minister and his colleagues in the Department of Trade and industry should do something about those asset-stripping companies.

Mr. Lang: I sympathise with the hon. Gentleman on the loss of some 530 jobs in his constituency because of the closure. However, that loss will take place over the next two years and Hanson has given undertakings on assistance with counselling, job searches and training activities. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman agrees that those decisions must be taken on commercial grounds and that industry must remain competitive, or more jobs will be lost. I am sure that he will welcome the fact that, by taking a commercial and competitive approach to the economy, the Government's efforts have resulted in a fall in unemployment in his constituency of about 3,000 over the past three years.

Helicopter Ambulance Service

Mr. Harris: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland on what criteria the decision was taken that a helicopter ambulance service is to be fully funded by the National Health Service in Scotland.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Michael Forsyth): A commercially sponsored trial in the highlands shows that a helicopter ambulance service represented value for money and improved the service greatly. The service is continuing on the basis that it will not add to the costs to the National Health Service overall.

Mr. Harris: Is my hon. Friend aware that, although the decision to fund the helicopter service in Scotland in full from Government sources is not begrudged in Cornwall, it caused dismay, consternation and puzzlement? The NHS has refused to make any contribution to the first helicopter ambulance service, which was provided in Cornwall. Did any special circumstances apply to the decision to fund in full the operating costs of the service in Scotland? Does my hon. Friend accept that the experience in Cornwall with that first helicopter ambulance service shows that the service is viable and valuable? Should not the same criteria therefore apply?

Mr. Forsyth: The helicopter ambulance service in Cornwall does a splendid job and has been commercially sponsored and supported by the community. Following the pilot scheme in Scotland, which was commercially sponsored, it became clear that the service represented value for money and that it would improve the quality of patient care. For those reasons, and within the existing resources available to the ambulance service, it was decided to take on the helicopter ambulance service for the highlands. The decision was based on the interests of patient care. Any expansion of that service may well involve sponsorship as it applied in Cornwall, but because that is not my responsibility, I cannot give my hon. Friend any detail on aspects relating to the project in Cornwall.

Mr. Home Robertson: Is the Minister aware that the proposal to cut hospital services in East Lothian by a crippling 22 per cent., including the closure of the casualty unit at Roodlands hospital in Haddington——

Mr. Speaker: Order. The question is about the helicopter ambulance service.

Mr. Home Robertson: My question will be about that. That proposal will give rise to serious difficulties in transporting about 600 casualty patients a month from East Lothian to the accident emergency unit at Edinburgh royal infirmary. Does the Minister believe that the existing ambulance service can cope with that, or is he thinking of helicopters?

Mr. Forsyth: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that at Scottish Question Time he has cheered when the Government's policy on competitive tendering has been attacked. He will be aware also that the revenues that have been saved in the Scottish ambulance service as a result of the pilot scheme on competitive tendering in my constituency are almost sufficient, over the three-year period, to meet the costs of the helicopter ambulance service.
The hon. Gentleman will know that Lothian health board's proposals, which involve hospitals in his constituency, are out at consultation at present, and they will come to my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for consideration in due course.

Roads

Mr. Cran: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many bypasses in Scotland are currently under construction; and how many further ones are planned.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The Scottish Development Department has nine trunk road bypasses currently under construction, with a further 23 currently programmed. Bypasses on non-trunk roads in Scotland are of course a matter for the regional councils as roads authorities.

Mr. Cran: Does my hon. Friend agree that the £1·6 billion of potential and actual spending on Scottish roads and bypasses has benefited the motoring public and has cut my regular journey to Aberdeen by about an hour and a half as a result of the improvements to the A94? Does he also agree that that spending has improved the competitiveness of Scottish companies and, if that is not enough, has contributed towards the attraction of £2·6 billion of inward investment into Scotland since 1981?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Spending on roads is 15 per cent. in Scotland higher than in England, where there has also been a substantial increase in resources. This year we are spending £205 million of capital and current expenditure which we believe is extremely important for jobs. My hon. Friend referred to Aberdeen; the upgrading of the road between Inverness and Aberdeen is the joint priority in Scotland along with the M74. We published recently a progress report about the bypasses that we hope will be brought to fruition before long in many parts of Scotland which will be important for jobs and will benefit the environment.

Mr. Eadie: Although the Minister may give us a roll-call of expenditure on bypasses, does he recall that in my constituency there is a serious problem in Dalkeith with the A68? Will the Minister consider that problem? Traffic in Dalkeith is a disgrace, and we badly need the A68 bypass.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The Dalkeith bypass will go ahead as quickly as possible and we hope that it will greatly benefit the hon. Gentleman's constituents. As the hon. Gentleman is aware, the A7 will be upgraded to dual carriageway status later in the 1990s and we hope that that will also be of substantial benefit. If the hon. Gentleman is aware of particular problems on the A68 with accident blackspots, I should be grateful if he would let me know so that we can set in hand accident remedial schemes straight away.

Sir Hector Monro: May I congratulate my hon. Friend the Minister on the expenditure on the A75 between Gretna and Stranraer, including the bypasses at Annan, Castle Douglas, Gatehouse and Glenluce? There are many more to come including one for Dumfries. Is not that exceptionally wise expenditure which will benefit industry, agriculture and tourism and is not it something that the Government should continue with all possible haste?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I assure my hon. Friend that the progress on the M74 is such that it may be the fastest motorway to be built in Britain to date. We certainly intend to go ahead as quickly as possible.

Mr. Wilson: The Minister will already know of the concern in my constituency about the delays to the Ardrossan-Saltcoats-Stevenston bypass and perhaps he can say something about its prospects. Does he agree that there is a danger of defeating the purpose of bypasses if they act as magnets for developments round them, particularly in green belts?
On a subject that is closely related, does the Minister agree that the fate of football clubs should not be decided by property developers behind closed doors without regard to the interests and wishes of the people who support those clubs and attach a great deal of importance to them?

Mr. Speaker: Order. Is not that a wee bit wide of roads?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The hon. Gentleman was bypassing the question. However, he made a serious point about the Ardrossan-Saltcoats bypass. About 23 bypasses are planned to start in Scotland and we will take the hon. Gentleman's point into account. Nine bypasses are under construction now and considerably more are likely to go ahead by 1991, including one at Bennane Hill on the A77. I must leave the Hearts bypass to my hon. Friend the Minister for Sport to answer another day.

Mr. John D. Taylor: Does the Minister recognise that the people of Northern Ireland, living just 20 miles or so from the coast of Scotland, regard the bypasses and roads in the west of Scotland as their lifeline into the rest of the United Kingdom and to Europe? In future, will he take that into account, consult the Northern Ireland Office and seek its support and co-operation for the improvement of the road system in any applications made to Brussels for European Economic Community support?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I shall certainly contact my colleagues in the Northern Ireland Office to make them aware of the right hon. Gentleman's point. The commitment to upgrade the A75, which is a Eurolink with Northern Ireland, is moving steadily forwards fulfilment.

Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: In contradiction to the Opposition, will my hon. Friend the Minister tell the House how grateful Perth is for its southern bypass so that St. Johnstone football club can have the most modern football ground in Scotland with the best facilities in a greenpeace site—[interruption.]—where people can enjoy the football?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: We believe that all road projects should be environmentally friendly, and we shall do everything within our power to ensure that that happens.

Steel Industry

Dr. Reid: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he intends to meet trade union representatives from the Scottish steel industry to discuss investment in the Scottish steel industry.

Mr. Rifkind: My hon. Friend the Minister of State and I met representatives of the steel trade unions in Scotland recently.

Dr. Reid: I am glad that the Secretary of State met representatives of the work force at Dalzell and Ravenscraig because their jobs are on the line and they


know better than any hon. Member the problems of the steel industry. Is the Secretary of State aware of growing suspicion among workers' representatives and others that the closure of the hot strip mill at Ravenscraig is a result of the manipulation of the monopoly position of British Steel? What will he do to investigate that? I am aware that he welcomed the study of the market by Motherwell district council, but that will not be sufficient. What independent investigation has the Scottish Office initiated, or does it intend to initiate, into the competitive—or otherwise—practices of British Steel now and in the future?

Mr. Rifkind: We have said that the first priority is to try to obtain greater information—indeed, some information—from British Steel on the reasoning and thinking behind its announcement. I endorse what the hon. Gentleman said about the attitude of the work force. When I wrote to Sir Robert Scholey last week seeking further information of the kind that I have indicated, I also suggested to him that he might find it helpful to meet representatives of the work force at Ravenscraig not only to explain to them the thinking behind his proposals but to hear their constructive suggestions on how they can continue to make a viable contribution to the well-being of British Steel as a whole through the Ravenscraig works.

Mr. Siliars: Is the Secretary of State aware that one of the most important meetings this year on investment in the future of the Scottish steel industry will be the annual general meeting of British Steel in July? Will he confirm that one of the privileges of the golden share held by the Government is that a Crown Minister has the right to attend and address the shareholders' meeting? Will the Secretary of State take the opportunity in July to exercise that right and address the board and the shareholders on the unfairness of the investment by British Steel since 1983 and try to elicit from the meeting the information that has so far been denied to us?

Mr. Rifkind: However sincere the hon. Gentleman's intention might be in making that proposition, it is a rather foolish suggestion. He knows as well as I do that the golden share is relevant only to any proposal by an outside interest to acquire more than 15 per cent. in the shareholding of British Steel. That is made quite clear by the prospectus, and the hon. Gentleman knows it as well as I do.

Mr. Holt: May I remind my right hon. and learned Friend that we are talking about the British steel industry and that there will be considerable resentment among my constituents and others on Teesside if he seeks in any way unduly to influence British Steel in making its commercial decisions simply because of the volume of voices from the parliamentary Labour party?

Mr. Rifkind: Although I understand my hon. Friend's views, I remind him that the Government amendment, which the House approved, called upon British Steel to explain and defend its decision with regard to its proposals for the hot strip mill, and that is exactly what we intend to do.

Mr. Dewar: Does the Secretary of State accept that it is not encouraging to hear a Minister of the Crown say that he is hoping to get some information from British Steel? Is the Secretary of State receiving information from the

company about the arguments, the facts and the figures? Has Sir Robert Scholey stated that he will discuss his case openly and frankly with the work force and with the Government? What steps does the Secretary of State propose to take if that co-operation is not forthcoming? If the information does come forward, will the right hon. and learned Gentleman look seriously at the need to challenge and test the assumptions behind that disastrous decision, perhaps with the help of independent advice?

Mr. Rifkind: Naturally, I understand the hon. Gentleman's need to make those remarks. However, I remind him that the Labour party's policy on this matter is, in practically all respects, exactly the same as the Government's. The Labour party has clearly ruled out the renationalisation of British Steel. It therefore follows that Labour is saying exactly the same as everyone else—that this is ultimately a decision for British Steel. If my assumption about Labour's policy towards the renationalisation of the steel industry is incorrect, I have no doubt that the hon. Gentleman will wish to make that clear.

Water Charges

Mr. Wallace: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what information he has on the percentage increases in Scotland on the community water charge between 1989–90 and 1990–91.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The average personal community water charge has risen by less than 9 per cent.

Mr. Wallace: The Minister must know that as the community water charge is not rebatable, the figure that he has announced amounts to quite an additional burden, especially on people with low incomes. As it is estimated that £1·25 billion will be required to improve water quality to meet the regulations, the community water charge looks set to become a crippling burden on families unless the Government do more to help local authorities. What proposals do the Government have to match the capital debt write-off for and the dowry given to the water companies in England and Wales before privatisation? Will the Government give the same help to Scottish local authorities? If they do not, Scottish families, businesses and communities look set to be crippled by high water charges throughout the 1990s.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The cash injections into eight of the 10 water authorities in England and Wales were part of the capital restructuring before privatisation which the hon. Gentleman knows is not happening in Scotland. The Scottish Office is considering the implications for Scotland. However, I stress that water charges are very much lower in Scotland than they are south of the border. The average household in Scotland pays just over £41 per year for water, whereas in England the figure is £64. Similarly, much more is paid per head south of the border for sewerage than is paid in Scotland. The hon. Gentleman knows that there are special circumstances in Shetland because of the negotiations over the Sullom Voe terminal, but, as Shetland has the lowest community charge in Scotland and Orkney the second lowest, the whole picture must be taken into account.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind not only the domestic water charge payer, but the business water charge payer in areas such as Grampian, which last


year had a dramatic increase in its water charges? When we see debts being written off for the English water boards, there is obviously anxiety among high water users, such as the food-processing and paper-making industries, that they cannot compete on level terms with similar industries south of the border because of the water charges that they must pay.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: There is a general desire for harmonisation. However, I stress that the non-domestic water rate for premises that are not connected to a metered water supply is levied in Scotland according to a proportion of the net annual value. That proportion is determined by the water authority and ranges from 100 per cent. to 12·5 per cent., depending on the type of premises. In general, we are seeking harmonisation.

Mr. Douglas: Does the Minister accept that there is a feeling that the charges have been held low in anticipation of the regional elections? Does he further accept that one of the anomalies of this matter, as with the poll tax, is that the charges are not income related? If the Secretary of State is looking to remove anomalies, what proposals is he putting before the Cabinet to make the poll tax and the water charge tax income related?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I must stress to the hon. Gentleman again that water charges in Scotland are much lower than those south of the border. I consider that that is a satisfactory position. There are many more difficulties with business rate payers who have to pay more in Scotland. We are trying to harmonise as quickly as practicable.
Income is taken into account in the rebate system, and a considerable number of people are exempt from water charges. Full-time students are entitled to an 80 per cent. rebate. People are exempt from personal community water charges if their premises do not receive a public water supply. Any person listed in the schedule to the Abolition of Domestic Rates Etc. (Scotland) Act 1987 who is exempt from the personal community charge is also exempt from the community water charge. That includes the severely mentally impaired and long-term and residential care home patients.

Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: Will my hon. Friend confirm that the water charge is use related and that if we could relate any form of local authority expenditure to use, we would not need a standard licence fee for the use of local authority services, which is the equity that the community charge represents?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I thank that I can explain to my hon. and learned Friend that water charges depend on a variety of factors such as the cost of treating and supplying the water, the amount of pumping facilities, the level of capital debt and the method of apportionment between classes of consumer. All those matters can vary among local authorities in Scotland and in fact do.

Glasgow-East Kilbride Railway

Mr. Ingram: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has received the submission from the East Kilbride development corporation and ScotRail to build a new railway station in East Kilbride and to extend the Glasgow-East Kilbride railway; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Lang: The submission from East Kilbride development corporation and ScotRail on the building of a new railway station in East Kilbride has been received and is being considered. I expect to announce a decision soon.

Mr. Ingram: Is the Minister aware that the long delay in reaching a decision on this matter is causing serious anxiety and uncertainty to householders who will lose their homes if the development goes ahead? Will he explain why it has taken so long to reach a decision on what is, after all, a relatively straightforward matter of extending a railway line a few hundred yards and building a modern up-to-date railway station to service the needs of commuters to and from East Kilbride? Will he give me an assurance that the answer that he has just given means that we shall receive a decision from the Minister in a matter of weeks, not of long, weary months?

Mr. Lang: I assure the hon. Gentleman that "soon" means soon. It is important that such decisions are carefully considered in the normal way. That includes an economic appraisal. That matter is in hand and I hope to set the hon. Gentleman's mind at rest in early course.

Mr. Allan Stewart: Will my hon. Friend confirm the importance of the Glasgow-East Kilbride line to the people of Eastwood? Will he congratulate Strathclyde region on putting new rolling stock on the Glasgow-East Kilbride line and the Glasgow-Barrhead line? On the point about reopening stations raised by the hon. Member for East Kilbride (Mr. Ingram), is not it encouraging that several new railway stations are being opened in the Greater Glasgow area—one example being Dumbreck, which is only five minutes from where I live?

Mr. Lang: I agree with my hon. Friend. As a result of a grant from my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State of about £30 million two years ago, there has been a substantial expansion and improvement in the rolling stock in Strathclyde. Last year about five stations were opened or reopened. This year 10 stations are scheduled to be reopened in the Strathclyde area, including Dumbreck, to which my hon. Friend referred.

Housing

Mr. Salmond: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what initiatives he intends to take with respect to solving Scotland's housing problem.

Mrs. Margaret Ewing: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what initiatives he intends to take with respect to solving Scotland's housing problem.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: My right hon. and learned Friend and I are developing a rural housing strategy for Scotland through Scottish Homes and we have asked Scottish Homes to give priority to the problem of homelessness.

Mr. Salmond: As 100,000 Scots are now on council house waiting lists and homelessness is even higher in Scotland than it is in England and Wales, when will an emergency programme for Scottish housing be set up to match the necessary programme for homelessness in London and the south-east of England? The south of England has 30 per cent. of the population of the United Kingdom and obtains 50 per cent. of mortgage tax relief


—an additional subsidy to the subsidy junkies of the south-east of £1,000 million. When will that spending be matched by investment in public sector housing in Scotland and elsewhere?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: We have increased the net capital allocations at the final stage by about £40 million above the previous year. A huge number of houses—more than 205,000—has been built in the past 10 years. The public sector built almost 60,000. We believe that the housing associations have an important role in catering for people with special needs and that the district councils are taking their statutory responsibilities seriously. Although each year there may be 25,000 or more applications from homeless people, the district councils are finding them places to stay.

Mr. Salmond: Rubbish.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The district councils are operating extremely effectively. We believe that Scottish Homes should give priority to assisting them in that purpose.

Mrs. Margaret Ewing: How can the Minister reconcile his answers at parliamentary questions in October last year, when he made it clear that the Scottish Development Department did not keep estimates of homelessness or overcrowding in Scotland, with a letter circulated in May this year to all Scottish Members in which he attacked Shelter, an organisation which does an effective job combating homelessness, for keeping such records? Will he stop talking about net capital allocations and instead talk about gross capital allocations? Last year the budget in Scotland was slashed by £51 million and in areas such as Moray that meant a reduction of 15 per cent. When will he take action to reduce and eradicate this social injustice?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: As for gross capital allocations, if district councils, especially in cities, processed right-to-buy applications more speedily, there would be millions of pounds extra to spend on Government housing this year. A few days ago I visited the hon. Lady's district council and saw the housing there. It is making good progress with the projects before it. The rural housing strategy, on which we hope to reach a decision on the way forward certainly by the autumn, will be of considerable assistance in helping to bring back into use many of the 130,000 empty houses in Scotland. I hope that that will have relevance in many rural areas, including that of the hon. Lady.

Mrs. Fyfe: How many council houses in Scotland are unfit to live in because of dampness and other problems? When does the Minister expect every family in Scotland to have a house fit to live in at the current rate of financial contributions from the Government?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: We think that it is a serious problem that about 48,000 houses have rising damp and condensation, but it is for the district councils concerned, which know their stock best, to choose the priorities for dealing with these matters. Many are completing local house condition surveys, which we welcome.

Mr. Neil Hamilton: Does my hon. Friend agree that the problem in Scotland is that too much housing is in the public sector? Is he aware that Scotland has a lower

percentage of owner-occupation than Czechoslovakia? What are the Government doing to speed the privatisation of the housing stock in Scotland?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Approaching 200,000 public sector tenants have purchased their homes in Scotland and we have a rents-to-mortgages trial scheme. As the Prime Minister said, if that scheme proves itself, it will be extended.

Mr. Maxton: If the Minister genuinely believes that local authorities are dealing with the problem of the 28,000 homeless people in Scotland, what is his answer to the leaders of the housing committees of Scotland's four largest housing authorities who yesterday claimed that there was a major housing crisis because the Government had cut £51 million in real terms of capital allocations? When will he recognise the housing crisis, shed his prejudices against council housing and give local authorities the money that they need to stop thousands of our fellow Scots suffering from poor housing conditions?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Cities such as Edinburgh and Dundee, and to a lesser extent Glasgow, are taking almost a year to process council house sales. If that period is reduced to seven and a half months, extra money will be available to those cities to spend on their public sector stock. It is necessary to bring back into use as many as possible of the 128,000 to 130,000 vacant houses in Scotland.

Industrial Development

Mr. Foulkes: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he last met the chairman of the Scottish Development Agency to discuss industrial development in Scotland.

Mr. Rifkind: I last met the chairman of the Scottish Development Agency on 24 March at a dinner for UK-Japan 2000, and my hon. Friend the Minister of State met him on 4 June.

Mr. Foulkes: Has the Secretary of State examined the distribution throughout Scotland of inward investment projects during the past five years, and has he reached the same conclusion as have the people and council of Cumnock and Doon Valley—that Locate in Scotland seems entirely unaware of the substantial advantages for inward investment of locating in a district that has higher unemployment, as the Secretary of State knows well, than in any travel-to-work area in mainland Britain? Will he ensure that Locate in Scotland is aware of the advantages of locating inward investment in Cumnock and Doon Valley? Will he encourage Locate in Scotland to try to make companies from the overheated south-east of England that want to find alternative locations aware of the quality of life that they will find in Cumnock and Doon Valley?

Mr. Rifkind: Naturally we are anxious that, wherever possible, inward investment should go to the areas with the most unemployment, but at the end of the day it is for the companies to decide their locations. If the Government were to seek to direct them, they would not come to Scotland in the first place. Ayrshire has been relatively fortunate for example, with the Caledonian paper factory


which, although located in Irvine, produces jobs throughout Ayrshire. I know that the hon. Gentleman will welcome that.

Sir Hector Monro: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the Scottish Development Agency, the regional economic development committee and the enterprise trusts have had substantial success in the past few years in bringing industry to Scotland? Will he say by how much unemployment has fallen in Scotland in each of the past three years?

Mr. Rifkind: My hon. Friend is correct. Unemployment in Scotland has fallen in the past three years at a higher rate than at any other time in recorded history. It is interesting that Scottish unemployment is now below the level of that of many European Community countries.

Mr. Hood: May I tell the Secretary of State about the real problem facing areas such as Cumnock and Clydesdale? The town of Larkhall in my constituency is next to the A74. It contains massive industrial sites, but has not been properly served by Locate in Scotland because it seems not to know of it, and it does not let anyone concerned with inward investment know about the area. We expect Locate in Scotland to address the problem, and to represent all communities instead of all parts of Scotland.

Mr. Rifkind: I assure the hon. Gentleman that Locate in Scotland has no bias in favour of or against any area. As for the area about which the hon. Gentleman is concerned, the improvement of the A74 to motorway status will make the area even more attractive to investment than it has been in the past.

Employment Training

Mr. McLeish: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give the estimated total number of employment training entrants in 1990–91.

Mr. Lang: Resources available for employment training in Scotland in 1990–91 have been based on an estimate of an average of 28,500 people in training at any one time. Over 55,000 entered employment training in 1989–90.

Mr. McLeish: Why is Scotland suffering such savage cuts in its training budget? Will the Minister confirm that £30 million has been cut from the youth training budget for the next two years? Has he had time to assess the impact of yesterday's announcement of 400 redundancies by Astra Training Services Ltd? That will impact on Scottish skill centres.

Mr. Lang: We do not need lectures from the Labour party on cutting training programmes. We are spending about six times as much in cash terms on training as did the Labour Government in their last year. We spend a higher proportion of our gross domestic product on training than do the United States, Germany or Japan. In the past four years, expenditure on training has risen by 60 per cent. at a time when unemployment has fallen by 50 per cent. Of course, it makes sense to adjust our training programmes and budgets to take account of falling unemployment and a reduced client group for those programmes. That is the right way to manage the programmes.

Mr. Worthington: During the past few months, the Minister has been in the unfortunate position of having to announce cuts imposed by the Department of Employment on employment training, the technical and vocational education initiative, youth training and the European social fund. The Minister has claimed that next year the Scottish Office will be in control of training. Is that true? Next year, will we be able to control those factors from within Scotland, or will we continue to have Department of Employment cock-ups?

Mr. Lang: Last year, the average number of people in employment training schemes was 26,000. For 1990–91 we are budgeting for an estimated 28,500, which is an increase in employment training. The training schemes are increasingly successful, to the embarrassment and discomfort of the Labour party, which has tried to undermine and oppose them.
As to the control of training policies, the hon. Gentleman knows that by merging the Training Agency with the SDA to create Scottish Enterprise and devolving control of the policies in detail to the local enterprise companies, we shall achieve the kind of flexibility and diversity within the overall training programme on a United Kingdom basis that will lead to better training and better job opportunities throughout Scotland.

National Health Service

Mr. McAvoy: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he last met representatives of the British Medical Association to discuss the current circumstances of the National Health Service in Scotland.

Mr. Michael Forsyth: I last met the BMA on 26 March 1990.

Mr. McAvoy: Does the Minister recall that members of the BMA along with all the people of Cambuslang and Rutherglen rejected the plan by Greater Glasgow health board to scrap a new hospital and to turn over care of the elderly to Takare, a private company? Despite boasts that this was a good financial deal for the public, the health board is refusing to reveal details of the weekly costs of the beds that will be paid to Takare. Will the Minister instruct the health board to reveal the true cost to the public of privatising care of the elderly?

Mr. Forsyth: The hon. Gentleman has the distinction of being one of the few Members of Parliament to come here to complain that a new facility for the elderly will be built in his constituency, faster than would otherwise have been the case, which will provide 180 beds at a lower cost to the Health Service. I hope that every one of his constituents is aware of his position because he is putting his own political dogma before the interests of patient care.

Oral Answers to Questions — BALLOT FOR NOTICES OF MOTIONS FOR FRIDAY 22 JUNE

Members successful in the ballot were:
Mr. Lewis Stevens
Mr. David Martin
Mr. Archy Kirkwood

Oral Answers to Questions — EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS

Mr. Speaker: With the permission of the House I shall put together the four motions relating to European Community documents.

Ordered,
That European Community Document No. 10499/89, relating to production and labelling of organic food, be referred to a Standing Committee on European Community Documents.
That European Community Document No. 9825/89 and the Supplementary Explanatory Memorandum submitted by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on 2nd May 1990, relating to game and rabbit meat, be referred to a Standing Committee on European Community Documents.
That European Community Document No. 10438/89 and the Supplementary Explanatory Memorandum submitted by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on 12th

March 1990, relating to marketing standards for poultrymeat, be referred to a Standing Committee on European Community Documents.
That European Community Documents Nos. 4780/90, relating to health rules for poultrymeat, 4596/90, relating to health rules for fresh meat, 4781/90, relating to health rules for meat products, 4863/90, relating to health rules for minced meat and certain other meat preparations, and 4782/90, relating to the conditions for granting derogations from specific Community health rules on the production and marketing of products of animal origin, be referred to a Standing Committee on European Community Documents.—[ Mr. Fallon.]

Oral Answers to Questions — STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &amp;c.

Ordered,
That the draft Planning and Building Regulations (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Order 1990 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.—[ Mr. Fallon.]

Injurious Affection (Amendment)

Miss Ann Widdecombe: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to reduce the time limits within which compensation may be claimed under the law of injurious affection.
I am concerned principally with those people in Kent, particularly in my constituency, who will be adversely affected by the channel tunnel rail link and various concomitant works. However, the Bill would also benefit people in other constituencies being immediately affected by motorways or other works of public transport construction.
The law as it stands means that compensation does not become payable until 12 months after the first date of use of whatever is in question. As things are progressing at the moment, it looks unlikely that the channel tunnel rail link will be up and running before the turn of the century.
Constituents of mine and those of my hon. Friends who are just outside the 240 m corridor will not have their properties compulsorily purchased, they will have all the uncertainty until construction is complete, they will suffer nuisance during construction and, when the first train runs, they will have to wait 12 months before they can prove nuisance. The Bill sets out to reduce that period so that people who are injuriously affected by various works of construction will be able to claim within three months rather than 12.
The present arrangements are set out in the Land Compensation Act 1973. When that Act was passed, there had been no major railway construction since the turn of the century. We need to look in detail at our planning and compensation laws to see whether they are adequate to deal with this new phenomenon of the first major railway construction for so many years. In particular, I am worried about those constituents who will not be affected by the much talked about new high-speed rail link but who will be affected by all the concomitant works for freight that are being carried out on other lines. Those people will not be able to get any compensation unless there is negligence in the course of construction.
While British Rail says that the loop lines at Headcorn and elsewhere are merely for intensification of the use of existing lines, those who are affected by them, no matter how closely, cannot claim compensation because the Land Compensation Act specifically excluded intensification of use as a ground for claiming compensation. However, I could show hon. Members the houses of constituents in which cracks are already quite obvious and where there is already subsidence and immense noise pollution.
I am aware that the Government take the matter seriously. They have shown that by the Department of Transport initiative in setting up a committee specifically

to look at noise nuisance. However, that committee's deliberations are likely to be long and I do not know whether ultimately they will help immediately those who will be affected by the various construction works.
If a nuisance can be proved within three months, it will not go away in the next nine months. Why is it necessary to wait 12 months if one can prove immediate nuisance? I do not understand that. There are major benefits in reducing the period to three months. First, there is the obvious effect on householders who are suffering uncertainty about the value of their property and about the nuisance. A three-month period would give a shorter time scale in which the Lands Tribunal could work and in which appeals could be made, and would therefore remove the complicating factors that can arise in 12 months.
For example, if a householder sells his property before the 12 months have elapsed, there are additional complications in adjusting the compensation. There would be benefit in the administration of the law, as well as benefit to those householders who are suffering. The complicated adjustment that is necessitated by many interim effects which can arise between three and 12 months, such as adjustments to the value of the property, inflation, market changes and other influencing factors, would also be subject to a shorter time scale, and that would make matters neater and tidier.
My prime concern is that my constituents and the constituents of the other sponsors of the Bill in Canterbury, Gravesend and Dartford are all suffering because of inadequate compensation laws. My Bill would reduce a further period of uncertainty for which there appears to be no good reason and which inflicts further mental suffering as well as suffering caused by physical nuisance.
These matters are causing more problems in Kent than are generally recognised. If my constituents must wait another five, six or seven years for construction to take place, only to be asked to sit back and suffer one year's blight of nuisance, noise, house damage and undervaluing of property, they are faced with a monstrous proposal. A simple change in the law would at least reduce that blight if it could not entirely eliminate it.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Miss Ann Widdecombe, Mr. Julian Brazier, Mr. Jacques Arnold, Mr. Bob Dunn, Mr. Andrew Rowe, Mr. Roger Sims and Mr. David Shaw.

INJURIOUS AFFECTION (AMENDMENT)

Miss Ann Widdecombe accordingly presented a Bill to reduce the time limits within which compensation may be claimed under the law of injurious affection: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 6 July and to be printed. [Bill 155.]

Points of Order

Mr. Anthony Beaumont-Dark: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You must be aware, Sir, of the great respect in which you are held in the House in defending the rights of individual Members and the rights of the House of Commons. Will you tell us whether you have made the views of the House known to the other place—the latter-day 1930s appeasers—on the War Crimes Bill? Have the Government made available any knowledge to you that an early statement will be made so that the Bill can be sent back to the other place and their Lordships sent packing in the interests of the democracy of this country?

Mr. Speaker: I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman should ask me whether I have let my views be known on that matter. He certainly heard the views of the Prime Minister yesterday. The matter is one for the Government, not for me.

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Beaumont-Dark) has prompted a rash of points of order on an Opposition day. Points of order will take time out of the time for the debate.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You have heard the views of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Beaumont-Dark) on the powers of the other place, and there are Opposition Members who believe in abolishing the House of Lords. We are still battling to get that proposal into a policy review before the general election. Apart from all that, I think that there is a matter that you should clarify. Many Speakers go to the House of Lords when they have finished their stint here. I reckon that, on the basis of what was said yesterday about Members declaring their interests, you should tell us what your intentions are, Mr. Speaker, before you consider your response to the point of order.

Mr. Speaker: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman has given me a lead. That is precisely why I shall say nothing.

Mr. David Winnick: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Whatever your plans may or may not be—I hope that you will be in this place for quite a while yet—may I ask whether there will be some way in which the House will be able to express clearly the fact that, on a free vote, there was an overwhelming majority in favour of the War Crimes Bill, which has been entirely ignored by the other place? There has been much speculation in the press that there will be an opportunity for a debate, when the House can reaffirm its decision. Have you been notified, Mr. Speaker, whether such a debate will take place in the near future?

Mr. Speaker: I have not been notified. However, we have business questions tomorrow, and if the hon. Gentleman is fortunate enough to catch my eye, he may be able to put his question to the Leader of the House. The right hon. and learned Gentleman is in his place and I am sure that he has heard what has been said.

Opposition Day

[14TH ALLOTTED DAY]

Eye Tests

Mr. Speaker: I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.

Mr. Robin Cook: I beg to move,
That this House records its alarm that since Her Majesty's Government ended the provision of free eye examinations the number of eye tests has fallen by over two million; notes that Her Majesty's Government's policy of leaving charges for eye tests to be settled by the market has resulted in a typical charge of £12·00; concludes that charges are deterring many members of the public from seeking eye tests, thereby putting their sight and health at risk; and calls upon Her Majesty's Government to restore a free preventive service for eye examinations.
The Secretary of State will recall that his first reappearance at the Dispatch Box in his current role was to defend the abolition of the free eye test in a debate on a Lords amendment to the Health and Medicines Bill. In the patois of sketch writers, he made a speech which would normally be described as "robust". I remember that he was jolly cross with the rest of us for defending the Lords amendment.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman accused right hon. and hon. Members in all parts of the House who disagreed with him of crying wolf. He said that the idea that people will be deterred from coming forward for an eye test because of a charge was
contrary to common sense as well as the evidence … We must ask how many people, if any, will be deterred from going to the optician by the prospect—and it is no more than a prospect—that many opticians will charge £10."—[Official Report, 1 November 1988; Vol. 139, c. 923.]
I appreciate that the Secretary of State was asking a rhetorical question, and I apologise for the fact that the rhetorical pause that followed it has lasted 18 months. However, we can now answer the right hon. and learned Gentleman's question. The answer to his question of how many people would be deterred from taking an eye test is 3 million. That is the number who have been deterred from undergoing an eye test as a result of the charge. The Secretary of State appears surprised. That figure has been available from quarterly surveys since charges were introduced.
The figure of 3 million is one which we can quote with confidence because it has been prepared by Professor Hart, professor of statistics at Reading university, using two sources. The first was a survey by the Association of Optometrists, drawing on 400 branches, with data collected from those branches by the Economists Advisory Group. The second was a survey also based on data collected from 1,200 branches of multiples, with data collected by Touche Ross.
I stress that both surveys had a very large base, and were based on work by independent agencies, not professional organisations. The conclusion reached in those surveys, and by Professor Hart, is that, in the year to April 1990, the number of eye tests performed totalled 8·9 million, compared with a figure in the year to April 1989 of 13·2 million—a drop of more than 4 million.
I want to be fair to the Secretary of State. The figures are so dramatic that I can afford to be fair to him. I concede that, in the year to April 1989, probably an extra 1 million people underwent eye tests in anticipation of the introduction of charges. In fact, the Minister of State made a precise estimate of their number. He provided a figure to the Select Committee suggesting that 1·4 million tests were performed in 1987–88 in anticipation of charges and resulted in an unduly high figure for those years. I think that the figure of 1·4 million is rather high, but I shall not quibble. I concede every single one of them. Even if that number is deducted from the fall in the number of tests last year over the previous year, one is still left with a dramatic decline in eye tests of 2·9 million—effectively, a 3 million drop in the number of people going for an eye test last year.
One has to go back to 1981 to find a year in which the number of eye tests was that low. Effectively, the Government have wiped out a whole decade of advance in the eye service.

Mr. Neil Hamilton: The line of argument that the hon. Gentleman is now adopting seems rather different from that which he used in the debate on the Health and Medicines Bill on 1 November 1988, when he said:
I predict, with confidence, that the Secretary of State will not save that sum, for two reasons … Eye hospitals will be swamped by references from general practitioners who will no longer be able to refer their patients to optometrists for free examinations."—[Official Report, 1 November 1988; Vol. 142, c. 933.]
Can the hon. Gentleman say whether that has happened, and whether the difference in the two figures that he quoted is accounted for by that factor?

Mr. Cook: If the eye hospitals had received 3 million additional referrals for free examinations, I assure the hon. Gentleman that he would have spotted the queues in the street. My point is that since charges were introduced 3 million people have not undergone eye tests who would otherwise have done so. That is perfectly consistent with the fact that the number of people going to eye hospitals who previously would not have done so is significantly up. That increase will be matched by the reduction in the number of referrals of people with secondary symptoms who would obviously have been referred there by optometrists had they seen that large a number.

The Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Kenneth Clarke): If the hon. Gentleman is going to rely on the surveys published so far, will he agree that he is relying heavily on surveys of opticians, who I have no doubt were trying to be helpful but who have a vested interest in the replies that they give? Is he also going to refer to the survey carried out by the Association of Optometrists using a MORI poll of the general public or to the Royal National Institute for the Blind survey of the public, which show that there is no apparent decrease in the number of tests carried out?

Mr. Cook: The survey carried out by the Royal National Institute for the Blind gave an estimated 2·7 million reduction, which is substantial—I am sorry to have to tell the Secretary of State that I have seen it and it shows precisely that reduction. I can assure him that I will be referring to the survey carried out by MORI because I believe that it is a prime part of his case.
I must pick up on the way that the Secretary of State has immediately sought to cast doubt on the figures that I

gave because they came from opticians. I repeat that the statistics I quoted were derived by a professor of statistics, who is putting his scientific reputation on the line, from data collected by the Economists Advisory Group and by Touche Ross, the chartered accountants. The Secretary of State is suggesting that all those are part of a conspiracy to distort the figures. Is he telling the House that every one of those 400 independent optometrists and 1,200 branches of the multiples is part of a conspiracy to practise a statistical lie—that they are all together in a conspiracy to co-ordinate the same statistical lie?

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: I am pointing out that the figures that the hon. Gentleman has relied on, quite mistakenly, are all derived from independent opticians and multiple chains. Figures obtained from the general public—surveys of patients, including, contrary to what he has just asserted, questions asked by the Royal National Institute for the Blind—do not support his thesis.

Mr. Cook: Perhaps my naivety and innocence made me conclude that the people most likely to be able to assist us on the numbers of people coming forward for eye tests are the opticians who carry out such tests. If the Secretary of State is really telling the House—if he is, it will be badly received outside—that that scientific profession is capable of practising a lie for financial gain, I have a simple solution to offer him. In the past year, the profession has offered time and again to agree on a system of independent monitoring with the Secretary of State in which they could both participate. However, the Secretary of State has resisted and rebuffed every one of those overtures. There can be only one conclusion—it is perfectly simple—which is that the Secretary of State does not want their help to monitor the drop because he does not want to know how big the drop is.
Since the Secretary of State advises me to do so, I shall refer to the survey carried out by MORI on behalf of the Association of Optometrists. I assume that it is that survey, and the parallel survey which the Secretary of State has carried out, that have prompted the Government amendment to state that charges will not deter those who need sight tests from seeking them. I do not see where the "will" in the sentence comes from. It is not a question of what will happen in the future: as the Secretary of State knows, we have had a whole year of charges, and the evidence of deterrence is already there.
I understand that the Secretary of State has carried out a survey of his own, similar to the one that the Association of Optometrists commissioned from MORI. I presume that it is those data that the Secretary of State will deploy in his speech—a speech which his junior Minister yesterday assured the House would blow me out of the water. That would be an exhilarating experience, which I look forward to with excitement. The Secretary of State will have to find much more than the market research survey to which he has just referred if he is to succeed in blowing me out of the water.
Faced with the problem, the Government, typically, have opted for market research. Instead of going to the opticians for data, they have asked people in the street whether they can remember when they last had an eye test. The question that the Government have been asking is, "Have you had a sight test at an optician since Christmas?" The problem with that approach—to me, at least, it is a problem, although I suspect that the Secretary


of State sees it as a solution—is that it invites over-reporting. It is not just this year that the Association of Optometrists has carried out market research; it has carried out similar market research surveys in each of the last five years, which have resulted in an over-reporting of the number of eye tests by 15 to 25 per cent.
Knowing that he would be asked this question, the Secretary of State commissioned an identical survey from MORI, which put to a sample 1,000 people exactly the question that the Secretary of State devised for his survey: "Have you had a sight test at an optician since Christmas?" The result of the survey, if the answers were correct and if all those who said that they had been to an optician since Christmas had done so, would have been that, in the last financial year, there were not 9 million eye tests but 16 million eye tests.
The only problem that the profession would have had in the last financial year would have been to get all those coming in for an eye test to form orderly queues at the door. Such an approach merely tests popular perceptions; it does not test the reality of those who go to opticians for eye tests.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: The hon. Gentleman says that a public survey will plainly lead to over-reporting. I am prepared to agree with him, as a matter of argument. He believes that in the past there has been over-reporting of between 15 and 25 per cent. Does the hon. Gentleman not realise that a 15 to 25 per cent. allowance can be made and that there will still be no fall in the number of eye tests? The hon. Gentleman's proposition is based on the absurd argument that, so long as one surveys only opticians, one can show that there has been a drop, but every time one surveys the public, one finds that there has been no drop in the number of eye tests. I prefer the second approach.

Mr. Cook: The House will have observed that the Secretary of State is backing himself into a position from which he is successfully protecting himself against any opportunity of obtaining the correct data. From the moment that he says that opticians cannot be included in the survey, he is precluded from finding out how many people are going to opticians.
Let me try to impress upon the Secretary of State the invitation that opticians have been making to him for a year. If he does not trust them, he is casting a major slur on a scientific profession by saying that they are prepared, in conspiracy with Touche Ross, the Economists Advisory Group and Professor Peter Hart, professor of statistics at Reading, to conceal the figures and deceive the House. If that is what he is saying, I invite him to nominate any independent body that he and the Association of Optometrists can together instruct to collect the data. That invitation has been made to the Secretary of State each month for the past year. I ask him again whether he has the courage to accept the challenge.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: There is absolutely nothing new to say in this tired old debate between the two sides, except to discuss these surveys. The hon. Gentleman says that we must go only to opticians for our information. He is unaware of any survey of the general public that shows any reduction at all in the number of eye tests. He has seen a survey of the general public which shows that there has been no reduction in demand, but he dismisses it by using

the absurd argument that people do not remember correctly when they last had an eye test. Does he not accept that it is sensible to have a survey of the general public, or is he prepared to say that the only source of information on which he will rely is people with a professional, vested interest in the results?

Mr. Cook: Once again, the Secretary of State's most revealing comment was the last line—that because, as he perceives it, they have a vested interest, he is not prepared to believe what the opticians are saying to him. I find that a breathtaking slur which, by implication, would be applicable not just to optometrists, and could be used to rebut pretty well any medical research one cares to name, all of which is based on scientific research of people no doubt with a vested interest in promoting their own profession.
Over the years, the accountancy profession has developed modest and sometimes quite sophisticated tools for accounting the books. The accountancy profession, can, from time to time, detect fraud, particularly when that fraud is practised on the ginormous scale that the Secretary of State has alleged. I put it to the Secretary of State that all those optometrists who have been charging for eye tests for the past year have accounts and have to make annual returns. Will the Secretary of State accept any independent audit of their books to find out what has happened to their accounts and the numbers treated in the past year, or will he say that the accountants also cannot be trusted because they have some vested interest? It is perfectly clear that the Secretary of State is determined on one point—he will not ask the optometrists how many they are treating, because he dare not do so.

Dame Jill Knight: Is it not also true that, if the ophthalmic opticians and the medical practitioners are faking their books, that is a matter of fraud for the Inland Revenue?

Mr. Cook: I wholly agree with the hon. Lady, who has first-hand knowledge on which to make that assertion. There is a way in which the Secretary of State could assist the hon. Lady and myself. He could repeat his allegations outside the cloak of privilege. Were he to go public and assert that those 400 optometrists who made returns were seeking to practise fraud on the public, on the Department and on the House, the courts might take a considerable interest in the matter.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: I have at no stage made any such allegation—[HON. MEMBERS: "Yes, you have.") The hon. Gentleman has such a narrow statistical base for his case that every time I doubt it, he keeps trying to say that I am accusing people of fraud. Obviously, different practices fare to different extents. Some of the multiples have lost out rather badly to independents in the curious market of the past year. All I am saying, and the hon. Gentleman has not denied it, is that nobody has carried out a survey of the general public which shows any fall in demand whatsoever. The hon. Gentleman's entire case is a palpable myth and he should confess that he has based it on an inadequate and narrow survey and allow the House to spend its time on a more serious subject.

Mr. Cook: I am sorry to detain the House so long on the matter, but the Secretary of State has intervened five times to make exactly the same point. Quite patently, he rests his entire defence on his belief, which I am sorry to


assure him is mistaken, that market research has revealed no reduction in the number of those coming forward for eye tests.
I have two responses. First, the figures that I am quoting are not on a narrow base. They include one third of all the multiple branches and more than 10 per cent. of independent optometrists. That is a perfectly adequate large base. Secondly, it is not the case that all market research shows no reduction. I have here an RNIB survey and an RNIB press release. The first paragraph of that press release states that the survey indicates that about 2·25 million people have not taken sight tests in the past 12 months because they would have had to pay.
The very research that the Secretary of State is asking us to believe shows exactly the deterrent effect to which I have referred. The press release goes on to say, as we would expect, that the very people who are most deterred are those on lower incomes. That market research which the Secretary of State is prepared to believe—the Secretary of State will no doubt accept it—will show that those on lower incomes are twice as likely to be deterred and that those on the lowest incomes are three times as likely to be deterred.
The Government's amendment invites the House to congratulate the Government on its policy that
sight tests paid for by the National Health Service should continue to be available to those on low income".
There are two reasons why that assurance should not persuade the House. First, there is the problem which is familiar with mean-tested benefits and which makes entirely predictable the result when applied to eye tests. Many of those who qualify do not know that they qualify and therefore never come forward to claim the benefits. Secondly, the means test used is a mean means test. It is the same means test that is used to test entitlement for free prescriptions. Anyone with an income that is £10 or £15 above income support levels will be excluded. Anyone with an income of £60 a week is unlikely to qualify for help with eye tests.
To find out whether he or she qualifies, a person must first wade his or her way through form AG I, which comes in 17 pages and 19 parts. One will need good eyesight to get through it in the first place. I was recently sent a form by the Halifax building society inviting me to apply for a £5,000 loan. The form sent to test my entitlement ran to two pages, not 17. At the bottom there was an invitation to phone Tamsin if I had difficulty in filling in the form, and there was a photograph of Tamsin with her headphones on and plugged in, smiling and eager to respond to my queries.
There is no Tamsin to help a person to read the 17 pages of AG1. Moreover, the first thing one reads at the top of the form is the reference to help with NHS charges and the cost of travel to hospital or to visit someone in prison. I have challenged that unfortunate opening statement before and have suggested that the Departments of Health and of Social Security should revise this opening gambit. The only change is that the reference to visiting someone in prison now appears in even bolder type. Thousands of pensioners who are confronted with that opening line will go no further. They are precisely the people whom we should be encouraging to come forward for an eye test and precisely the people whose eyesight may be deteriorating.
The medical consequences of those people being deterred and not coming forward can be predicted accurately from the figures prepared by the British College

of Optometrists—not a trade organisation but the scientific and examining body for the profession. The college has prepared figures on the expected referrals from eye tests, from which we can predict the reduction in the number of referrals that is likely to result from a reduction of 3 million in the number of eye tests.
The number of referrals for medical examination will fall by 160,000 cases. Those are the people with disturbing symptoms who are now being missed, members of the public who are unaware that their sight and perhaps health are at risk. Using the figures prepared by the college, we can predict their conditions. Among the 160,000 cases, there will be 26,000 cases of cataracts, probably 25,000 cases of glaucoma, 9,000 cases of macular degeneration, 11,000 cases of hypertension and 13,000 cases of diabetes.
I come to the final absurdity. If only a third of those who are putting their sight at risk fail to come forward in time to avert blindness, the cost to the Government of supporting them will be about £50 million a year. I regret that I have expressed this personal tragedy as a cash figure, but I am trying to find an argument that can connect with the Treasury argument.
What savings do the Government expect from charges for eye tests? The answer is £90 million. That saving would be halved by the cost of those who may go blind as a result of being deterred in one year from coming forward. Those savings will be wiped out in two years. The Government's amendment invites us to congratulate them on having made economies by introducing charges for eye tests, but there are no savings from those charges; there will only be in the longer run extra costs to the health budget for coping with those whose condition is not detected.
Why did the Government get it so wrong? For the answer to that, we need look no further than the speech made by the Secretary of State in November 1988. When Opposition Members and even some Conservative Back Benchers told him that optometrists warned that they would be obliged to charge more than £10 for tests, the Secretary of State said that he did not believe that. He went on to say:
the charge for the eye test will steadily disappear, that is my strong personal opinion."—[Official Report, 1 November 1988; Vol. 139, c. 927]
Quite why the Secretary of State imagined that optometrists would offer a free eye test once he had stopped paying them is a mystery that he did not explain to the House. The income to the optometrists' profession from test fees is equivalent to the entire profits of the profession. How they were expected to absorb such a major loss is a mystery, the answer to which the Secretary of State did not share with the House.
A year after the introduction of charges for tests, the average charge is £12. A common charge is £15, and a charge of £30 has been recorded. When I challenged the Secretary of State six months ago to produce an optometrist who was providing an eye test free of charge, he cited an optometrist in Dover. On inquiry, all was not what it seemed in Dover. The optometrist there offered a free eye test only if someone bought a pair of spectacles after the test. If someone simply wanted an eye test, he had to pay for it.
I do not deny that it is possible to find the odd isolated case of an optometrist who provides a free eye test. However, those cases are so few as to be of curiosity value. There is not the slightest evidence that, by their competition, optometrists in Dover or anywhere else are


having the slightest effect on the market price of tests in the big cities. On the contrary, the quarterly surveys of the Association of Optometrists showed that the price charged over the past year has tended to increase, not decrease.

Mr. Nicholas Bennett: With regard to the £12 charge, we should get the figures into perspective. Will the hon. Member comment on the family expenditure survey for 1988, which shows that the average family spends £13·64 a week on tobacco and alcohol? In that context, is £12 every two years a large sum of money for a test? Is not the hon. Gentleman insulting the British public when he suggests that £12 will deter them from looking after their health?

Mr. Alun Michael: That was a Labour gain.

Mr. Cook: I am grateful for the intervention made by the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett), which my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) very astutely described as a Labour gain.
The hon. Member for Pembroke has illuminated the mists of ignorance and darkness with which we are trying to reason. We are not discussing the average family. Two thirds of those who visit optometrists do not constitute average families. They are pensioners, and four fifths of pensioners have incomes below £98 a week. We are concerned with people who must find £12 or £15 from a weekly income of perhaps £60, £70, £80 or even £90. While £12 or £15 might be a small sum to the hon. Member for Pembroke, it is not a small sum for that four fifths of pensioners. It is a tragedy for those pensioners that they find the conduct of the social policy of their nation in the hands of people who cannot comprehend what it is like to live on that sum of money.

Mr. Nicholas Bennett: rose——

Mr. Cook: No, I will not give way to the hon. Gentleman again. He had his chance. I will not give him another opportunity to destroy the Secretary of State's case.
I have one question above all others to which I should like the Secretary of State to reply. Is it still his strong opinion that the eye test charge will steadily disappear? Also, is he still prepared to tell the House that charges of £12 by independent optometrists and of £11·20 in Boots and in Dollond and Aitchisons, which have survived over the past year, will steadily disappear? If so, when will they disappear? How long must we wait until the market works its miracle?
I pause to reflect on the wider lessons to be drawn from the fact that the Secretary of State has been so spectacularly wrong in his predictions to the House. Those predictions were based on the same dogma on which he rests his dramatic proposals for the rest of the Health Service. In 1988 he promised that, by introducing the market, there would be greater efficiency, because competition would drive down prices and widen choice. What has actually happened in the eye service is that the introduction of the market has increased the price and dramatically reduced productivity. It has also reduced the choice available to the public, because 250 branches of independent optometrists have closed.
I noted last month in Ellesmere that an optometrist business that had been operating since 1897 and had survived two world wars and a depression has been driven out of business by the first 18 months of this Secretary of State. Now the public of Ellesmere, if they wish to visit an optometrist, must travel to Oswestry.
The lessons are clear—they are revealing. Competition in health care, in the case of the eye service, has resulted in higher prices, a reduction in the numbers treated, and a reduction in the number of places at which to be treated. Heaven help the Secretary of State if, next April, his new market in hospital care has exactly the same results for the public.
The difference between the two Front Benches is neatly expressed in a letter from the recent junior Minister at the Department of Health who has now departed to the Department of Transport—a man for whom I had high regard until yesterday, when I discovered whom he had appointed as his Parliamentary Private Secretary. I therefore have no compunction about quoting the letter that he wrote to optometrists, in which he himself made the remarkably revealing observation:
The Government does not have a policy regarding the price of private sight test fees. Private sight tests are commercial transactions between the optician and his or her patient.
I hope this clarifies the situation.
It certainly clarifies it. I regard it as an appalling statement by any Health Minister that his Government have no policy on the cost of an eye test. I cannot accept that that important matter of health policy should be left as a commercial transaction. It should be one of the first priorities of health policy that anyone who needs an eye test should be able to get one irrespective of whether he or she can afford the commercial transaction.
In a spirit of charity, I put to the Secretary of State the thought that we all make mistakes. I have made mistakes in my time—one day when we are both retired, I shall tell him what they were. The Secretary of State can be forgiven for being wrong, but he cannot be forgiven for stubbornly refusing to face up to the fact that he has been wrong. Those who loudly deny their mistakes do not prove the strength of their convictions; they only establish their lack of courage.
I have an example for the Government. The state of Alberta also ended free eye tests in July 1987. Twelve months later, it was found that there had been a 30 per cent. fall in the number of eye tests—a perfect parallel with our experience, but there the parallels diverge. The state Government of Alberta had the sense to recognise reality and the courage to recognise that they were wrong. They brought back the free eye test.
It is now the Secretary of State's turn. I wait to hear whether he has the same good sense and the same courage to restore the free eye test that he took away 18 months ago. In the event that he is unable to do so, I end my remarks by correcting yet another of the mistakes in that speech of November 1988. At the end of his speech, the Secretary of State said:
I do not believe that any future Labour Government will withdraw this charge".—[Official Report, 1 November 1988; Vol. 139, c. 930.]
He was wrong again. It will be one of the first priorities of the next Labour Government to abolish charges for eye tests and to ensure that no one is deterred from getting an eye test because he or she cannot afford it.

The Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Kenneth Clarke): I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
supports the Government in its view that those who can afford to pay for sight tests should do so and that the money which was previously spent by the National Health Service on free sight tests for those who could afford to pay is better spent in other ways in improving health care; believes that this will not lead to the nation's health or sight being put at risk nor deter those from seeking sight tests who need them; and fully supports the Government's policy that sight tests paid for by the National Health Service should continue to be available to those on low income, children and those most at risk of blindness from diabetes and glaucoma.".
Care of the eyes is an extremely important part of any health care system and it is important that we do our utmost to ensure that we maintain a high standard of optical services and give everybody the service that they require to protect themselves against glaucoma and the consequences of diabetes, and to preserve good eyesight. That remains the Government's intention, and will be so.
However, with the greatest respect, that argument is stale. It relates to the extent to which we should allow opticians to charge for the eye test that is made before spectacles are dispensed to people who are not in the exempt category and entitled to National Health Service spectacles. The argument is merely a re-run of one that we had last year. Since then there has been no evidence to change the position that I have described. It is a serious mistake for the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) to rely so heavily on that point when, for example, committing a future Labour Government—if we should have one—to spending money on this subject. That is a serious misjudgment of priorities which, if ever carried out, would not serve any worthwhile health purpose.
I begin by reminding the House of the effect of the Government's changes. We continued to pay for the eye test for about one third of the population. The major exempt categories were those on low incomes, children, and people susceptible to certain diseases. The remaining two thirds of the population are no longer entitled to go to an optician for an eye test for which the NHS will pay a fee.
The effect of that change was obviously uncomfortable for opticians. When I refer to their vested interest, I am not referring to an illegitimate vested interest—like the rest of us, they are entitled to lobby from time to time in the interest of their cause. However, our change has put the opticians—the multiple chains and the independents—in the position of deciding whether to charge people who are no longer entitled to an NHS sight test and, if so, how much to charge them. We have now had a year of that so we can see where we are when discussing the possible consequences of the change.
I accept that any reputable optician will prefer the previous system—if I were an optician, I expect that I would. Opticians used to have little cards in the window which read "NHS sight tests free to all." That was a perfectly proper, not unprofessional attraction to people to go in and contemplate buying spectacles. It meant that the optician had a guaranteed income from the public purse for every test carried out, at a fee set by the National Health Service and not, therefore, subject to competition for patients among the different outlets. The change has

meant that each optician now has to decide whether, and to what extent, to charge. Opticians no longer have those little cards in the window——

Mr. Eddie Loyden: rose——

Mr. Clarke: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman in a moment.
A variety of charges has been imposed. I accept that the average is roughly that which the hon. Member for Livingston described. The hon. Gentleman conceded, fairly, that some opticians are offering the sight test free. I cite Duncan and Todd, Hendrys and Lannies. There are other examples across the country——

Mr. Robin Cook: As the Secretary of State has specifically mentioned Duncan and Todd, I remind him and place on record the fact that Duncan and Todd introduced the free eye test in Scotland after writing to me to seek an assurance that the next Labour Government will abolish the charge for the eye test, on the basis that it could afford the experiment only until the next general election. If the Secretary of State is citing Duncan and Todd, he should remember that the free eye test will not survive the election unless a Labour Government are elected.

Mr. Clarke: That shows that those opticians are worried about weakening the effect of the opticians' lobby on the Labour party. With the greatest respect, the hon. Gentleman's approach to this issue is extremely naive—which is unusual for him. I recommend that he reads the optical press of 12 months ago when the change was made, when many opticians were contemplating much lower charges and free tests. Immense pressure was brought to bear on opticians. I remember a letter that urged them not to play the Government's game. The hon. Gentleman obviously thinks that it is a coincidence that opticians are still charging roughly the same as the NHS fee, except in the cases that I have cited, where free eye tests have already been introduced. Many opticians regard charging the patients who come into their practice less than others legitimately think to be the going rate for carrying out that work to be somehow letting the side down.

Mr. Loyden: When the Secretary of State evaluates the benefits of free eye tests, he seems to ignore the fact that they are very much a part of preventive medicine. Indeed, as one who has experienced being diagnosed as suffering from glaucoma by an optician, I am convinced that that aspect of the eye test is vital. The Secretary of State appears to overlook that completely.

Mr. Clarke: No. I acknowledge it. I urge everyone to have a regular eye test if there is any reason to believe that they need one. I accept that some diseases can be detected by eye tests. We are arguing about whether it is wrong for people outside the exempt categories to pay—most of them—about £10 to £11 once every two years for an important part of their health care. We are debating the consequences of most opticians having decided in practice to continue to charge a fee such as I have described.
I shall respond to the challenge put to me about when competition will become more widespread. I think that it will become more widespread if the Labour party stops supporting the campaign for free eye tests. Opticians are travelling in hope that sooner or later there will be a Government who will give them back the assured income


without competition that they used to have. They are extremely reluctant to allow a competitive market to break out when Her Majesty's official Opposition promises, as far as I can see, no explicit extra expenditure on the Health Service except in this unlikely area and on dental checks, which are about the only items of NHS spending to which the Labour party is committed.
I have studied the policy document of the hon. Member for Livingston and I seriously believe that the Labour party is in difficulties. The party is almost bereft of any health policy and is in danger of giving way to professional and sometimes even commercial lobbying when choosing its priorities.

Mr. Charles Kennedy: Listening to the Secretary of State on this point, I am reminded of a gentleman whom I and the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) came across last night at a public meeting on health. He was a Conservative-appointed general manager who was talking about NHS consultants in a health debate in a different context. Precisely the same thing struck both the hon. Gentleman and me last night as probably strikes the hon. Gentleman about the Secretary of State now. Cannot the Secretary of State realise that, at least in health, and in many other areas of social policy, too, professionals sometimes react to events and seek assurances out of not commercial self-interest but general care about health standards and their patients? Will he acknowledge that for once, instead of accusing experts or professional groups within the Health Service of commercial, mean-minded motives every time they seek to disagree with him when the best interests of preventive health care and preventive medicine might be their priority?

Mr. Clarke: I do not regard accusing people of having, among other things, commercial motives as necessarily a wicked attack on them. Of course, opticians are skilled professional people upon whose care we all depend. Their prime motive is the care of their patients. But by and large spectacles and eye tests in Britain are provided by commercial chains and organisations as well as independent practices. Outfits such as Dollond and Aitchison and Boots Opticians, with which I have had some contact in my constituency, are perfectly legitimate commercial organisations which have a wholly respectable but commercial interest in the outcome of this discussion.
We should all be worried about—indeed, I believe that we all have the same genuine concern, and that the hon. Member for Livingston is mistaken in choosing this cause for that reason—the consequence for health care and preventive medicine to which the hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Loyden) referred. That is where we must turn to surveys. The whole case of the Opposition that we are threatening the eye care of the nation is based on the proposition that the ending of NHS tests for two thirds of the population led to a reduction in the number of eye tests. I shall seek to demonstrate that that is untrue. There is no evidence to support it. It is wrong. The Opposition's case is based on a total myth.

Mr. John Marshall: Will my right hon. and learned Friend also tell the House how much

revenue comes from the charges and what would be the impact of their abolition on, for example, the number of hip replacement operations?

Mr. Clarke: The cost of restoring free NHS eye tests to two thirds of the population—including everyone in this Chamber who at present faces the wicked burden of paying £10 for an eye test—would be £90 million. The Labour party wants to spend more than the entire budget of a reasonable-sized, English district health authority on giving everyone in this Chamber a free eye test. That is an absurd choice of priorities, considering all the demands that come piling in on the NHS. It is urged because it is said that the number of people having eye tests has fallen since charges were introduced, but that is not the case.
There have been various surveys. The hon. Member for Livingston correctly cited the surveys that are based on information collected from some, but not all, opticians. I do not doubt the bona fides of those who collected it, but the figures are derived from a section of the profession and some of the chains. I suspect that the tendency to respond to surveys is strongest for opticians who lost out in the extremely turbulent market which was created over the past 18 months.
I believe that the profession and some of the chains created that turbulent market. It was also unavoidable. We had a controversial debate about the change. It was flagged up all over the place that charges were to be introduced in April 1989, with the result that a huge number of people were attracted to come for a free eye test while it lasted. Those who campaigned against us while we were contemplating the changes did not point out that many people would continue to be exempt. As we all know and as the profession concedes, the result was a huge increase in the number of people who had their eyes tested before April 1989. The obvious result was a huge drop in the number of people who had their eyes tested thereafter, if only in the short term. A wave effect was created. I remember that some branches of Dollond and Aitchison stayed open till midnight in the last few days while free eye tests were available to encourage people to rush in. As a result, the first quarter of 1989 saw a big increase in the number of tests while the next quarter saw a big decrease.
Some practices were hit by that. It depended on the business acumen and position of those involved. Clearly, if the market is so transformed in the short term, some businesses lose out, some prosper and others are bought up by chains. Considerable turbulence was created in the market, partly by our changes, but greatly aggravated by the reaction of the profession in response to them. Now, after an interval, attempts are being made to establish the level of demand for eye tests as we return to normality.
The hon. Gentleman relies wholly on figures obtained from some opticians which, I am sure, have been subjected to expert analysis. He has ignored the surveys of the public. It is no good saying that it is all market research. If one wants to discover how many people are having their eyes tested, the only way to produce a reliable estimate is to take an independent sample of the public.
The Royal National Institute for the Blind carried out one survey, but the hon. Gentleman did not appear to have read beyond its press release. It carried out a telephone survey of a small sample. The first question was:
Have you paid for a sight test in the last 12 months?
That question is not referred to in the press release because the answer made it clear that there was no apparent


reduction in the number of people whom one would expect to give the affirmative answer. The RNIB then further questioned those people who said that they had not paid for an eye test in a series of leading questions about why they had not had a sight test. Most people who do not have an eye rest usually do not have one because they have not thought about it. I have had an eye test in the past 12 months, but in the past when I have not, that has been why. The questions heavily suggested that cost was a reason for not having a test. Yet the survey shows that the number who said that they had had an eye test was in line with past trends.
The other survey—which has already been mentioned—was carried out for the Association of Optometrists by MORI. No doubt trying to anticipate the results of our survey, the association had asked MORI to carry out a survey using similar methods, asking people whether they had been given a sight test by the optician—not the hospital or the doctor—since Christmas. Then, like the hon. Member for Livingston, it tried to ridicule the results.
I regret to say that the MORI poll showed that, if anything, the number of people who had had sight tests had gone up since the charges were introduced. Ten per cent. of those polled—equivalent to more than 4 million people—said that they had had a sight test since Christmas. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that that is a startling figure; he is probably right when he says that there was over-reporting, and that we must take off 15 or 25 per cent. to obtain an accurate figure. However, what he did not add was that the figure is so high that, even if that were done, there would still be no apparent drop in the number of people who had had eye tests.
The Association of Optometrists tried to dismiss the results of what was the best survey so far carried out. It said:
The Association of Optometrists believe that the phrase `since Christmas' is very loose. Christmas conjures up memories of the festive season, which for most people starts in November.
I do not think that most people think that Christmas is in November. When testing the recollection of the general public, it is best to choose some occasion that they may remember, and the phrase "since Christmas" is probably the best way of prompting memory: most people remember what they did before and after Christmas. The idea that "since Christmas" could be thought to include November is—with the greatest respect—a fatuous attempt to discredit the evidence. Even if people's recollections are incorrect and a proportion of respondents are discounted, there is still no evidence of any decline in demand.

Mr. Kennedy: As the Secretary of State has quoted the Association of Optometrists directly, will he do two things? First, will he note that the views with which he takes issue were not obtained by means of amateurish opinion polling, but have been verified by MORI—I hope that he would agree that MORI probably knows more about opinion polling than any of us—and the Association of Optometrists? Secondly, will he respond to another point in the press release to which he referred? The Association of Optometrists and MORI argue that, to focus the question directly, the phrase should have been "since December 31". What does the right hon. and learned Gentleman think?

Mr. Clarke: I have not yet had a chance to contact Bob Worcester of MORI to ask whether he agrees with the phrase "since November". As for the second part of the hon. Gentleman's question, asking people to remember whether something happened after 31 December is less likely to produce an accurate answer than asking them about what happened "since Christmas". Most of us cannot remember exact months or dates. Even if we allow for over-reporting, the survey does not demonstrate any evidence of a reduction in the number of sight tests; quite the reverse.

Mr. Michael: As the Secretary of State seems to be spending all his speech denigrating those who have sought to reach the truth, will he in the next few minutes give any fresh information that he has perhaps sought himself?

Mr. Clarke: It will be my pleasure to do so. The Government—fulfilling an undertaking that was given when the original Bill was being discussed—have carried out their own survey, which we delayed until the market had settled down and the wave effect had shown some signs of coming out.
We asked NOP to conduct a survey on behalf of the Department into the number of NHS and private sight tests during the first three months of this year. We released the results of that survey today and the details have been placed in the Library. Five sets of surveys were carried out in March and in April and 10,000 adults responded to the NOP questions. It is quite the best sample survey to have been carried out so far and it is adequate for any statistical purposes. The results have been made available together with wholly independent comment on the surveys by the Government statistical service.
The survey asked whether a person had had a sight test since Christmas and, on the basis of the response to that question, some 5 million people had their sight tested in the first three months of this year. That is a startlingly high result. If one extrapolated from previous trends up to 1987, only 3·5 million people should have had their eyes tested in that time. The result implies a substantial increase in the number of people having eye tests compared with the years up to 1989.
The results of the survey are startlingly high. Almost certainly it contained an element of over-reporting and therefore one must discount the results to some extent. The hon. Member for Livingston said that there had been between 15 and 25 per cent. over-reporting and attempted to demonstrate that that rubbished the MORI poll. I pointed out that even that level of over-reporting does not rubbish the poll as it still gets one back to the trend in the number of eye tests that existed before 1987.
If one discounts the figures in the NOP poll by 15 per cent. it still means there has been a great increase in the number of people having sight tests. If one makes the ludicrous assumption that half the people involved in the survey were wrong about when they had their sight test, one still gets back to the trend that existed before 1987. On any view the survey shows that the number of sight tests in the first three months of the year is at least well in line with the increases in the 10 years to 1987.
The past 15 months have been entirely consistent with what any reasonable person might have expected. Before the changes were introduced there was a rush and an abnormally high number of people had a sight test in the first three months of 1989. There was then an inevitable


dip, after which the number of sight tests has recovered to its former normal level. I intervened in the speech of the hon. Member for Livingston to say that I did not believe that he has a shred of evidence to contradict the surveys that have been carried out. To date three surveys have been conducted and they all show that the number of sight tests undertaken remain about the same. The hon. Gentleman's case is based on an absurd mistake in response to lobbying from the profession.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Minister said that the documents relating to the NOP survey are in the Library. I went there because I wanted to have a look at that survey, but it is not available.

Mr. Max Madden: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You were not in the Chair at the beginning of the debate, but had you been, you would have seen the Parliamentary Private Secretary to the Secretary of State scurrying round the Chamber handing out the documents to a number of Conservative Members. Could it be that those documents include the report on the NOP poll to which the Secretary of State referred? If so, information is being given to Conservative Members which has been denied to the rest of the House.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): I deprecate hon. Members scurrying round the Chamber slipping out pieces of paper, but I have no knowledge of their contents—they might have been betting slips for all I know. I am sure that the Secretary of State is ready to comment on the point made by the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell).

Mr. Clarke: One hundred copies of the report are available in the Vote Office. My advisers intended to place them there at the end of my speech, but they will put them there now if hon. Members want that.

Mr. Michael: Let us have a look at them.

Mr. Clarke: I do not mind that. The hon. Gentleman will have an opportunity to speak later and I shall look forward to hearing how he can dismiss the evidence of three public surveys to show that there has been no fall in demand. Presumably he will say that he prefers the returns from 10 per cent. of opticians. I shall greatly look forward to hearing what the hon. Gentleman has to say.
It is total nonsense to keep asserting that people are not having eye tests, but that is the basis upon which the Labour party is committed to spending £90 million of public money, for no worthwhile health advantage.

Mr. Robin Cook: The Secretary of State has repeatedly said that we have produced no evidence, but he knows perfectly well that we have produced voluminous evidence collected by people of impeccable independence and with statistical experience. He chooses to say that all that evidence is worthless because it stems from optometrists, all of whom are in a grand conspiracy to distort the figures. I have produced figures from 1,600 outlets of optometrists who carry out eye tests and they consistently report a decline in demand. As the right hon. and learned Gentleman has waved aside all those 1,600, can he produce

a single optometrist whom he has consulted and a single set of figures from any batch that he can reconcile with the wholly incredible results of his opinion polls?

Mr. Clarke: I have already dealt with the evidence, upon which the hon. Gentleman is relying, that comes from some sections of the profession which have responded to the poll. The hon. Gentleman is rendered speechless by the accounts I have given of the surveys—two of which he knew about—of the public which show that there is no evidence to support his case. The hon. Gentleman has again repeated his commitment that a future Labour Government will spend £90 million on eye tests. In terms of the NHS that sum is a staggering resource as it greatly exceeds the total budget of many district health authorities.
The NHS is well financed now—better than it has ever been—and I expect more to be spent on it. If I had £90 million more at my disposal eye tests would not figure on the first several pages of my priorities for expenditure. The hon. Gentleman has a problem because he cannot get his colleagues to agree to a commitment to spend more on the NHS. The shadow Treasury team is to be congratulated for showing common sense. I do not normally congratulate them, but they realise that following a period when cash spending has gone up by 20 per cent. in two years it is not possible for any Government of any party to contemplate increasing spending at a faster rate than that.
The hon. Member for Livingston has been trying to wriggle out of that problem and I think that he has been in trouble with his colleagues from time to time. Until recently he kept on trotting out a figure of £3 billion that might be produced during the lifetime of a Parliament. Obviously he has lost that argument because when one looks at the Labour party policy document no figure of any kind appears. There is a vague reference to underfunding, but it might take more than the lifetime of a Parliament to put that right. The Labour party is not promising to spend more on health. With the greatest respect to the hon. Gentleman, all that he manages to get in a vague, short and lightweight passage on health is a promise to restore free eye tests and free dental checks. That represents an astonishing set of priorities. I should imagine that the hon. Gentleman got that past his Treasury colleagues with his argument that one can save about £50 million by restoring the free eye test. This afternoon we have exposed that argument as wrong. On that occasion the shadow Treasury team showed a lapse in concentration.
There is no evidence to suggest that the restoration of free eye tests would increase the number of tests undertaken. Therefore, one would increase the number of tests undertaken. Therefore, one would not detect any disease quicker and there would be no saving to hospitals, but that is the argument that the hon. Gentleman appears to have swung across his hon. Friends when drafting the policy document. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will go away and decide whether it is wise for the one and only spending commitment of the Labour party to be devoted to saving £11 every two years for at least a comparatively better-off section of society.

Mr. Nicholas Bennett: The commitment given by the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) is in direct contradiction to the statement of the hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) a couple of months ago that


there were only two spending commitments by the Labour party, and the restoration of free eye tests was not one of them. Surely this is just like the promise to abolish prescription charges in 1965; those charges were abolished in 1965, but they were brought back in 1968 and were set 25 per cent. higher than in 1965.

Mr. Clarke: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for reminding me of the speech of the hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett). If my hon. Friend continues to scrutinise the speeches of Labour's Treasury spokesmen, he will see that they do not mention health at all. There is no commitment by the Labour party because it would not be possible to exceed our spending plans. The hon. Member for Derby, South must have had a momentary lapse when she allowed this commitment to pass. I hope that when she sees the results of the various surveys she will reconsider her position.
Our priorities are to make a better National Health Service, to expand services generally and to devote money to the cause of better patient care, including eye care. Labour's campaign is stale. It is based on a false premise and should be abandoned. Now that we have become used to free eye tests only for those who need the support of the Government, any sensible level of priority should tell us that that is where we should leave the matter.

Mr. Gerry Steinberg: I propose to be brief and mainly to confine my remarks to my constituency. Charging for sight tests has placed a financial restriction on public access to a primary health measure. The imposition of the charge has deterred people from taking early steps in perhaps preventing the need for more treatment later and in the early detection of more serious conditions such as hypertension, one of the most common predisposing causes of a stroke, and glaucoma, which is a potentially blinding disease but often treatable. We are told that prevention is better than cure, but paying for access to preventive health care has deterred many and they run the risk of having treatable medical conditions go undetected at an early stage.
I carried out a survey, but perhaps I should have gone to dentists and asked them for information because what the Secretary of State said suggested that information given by opticians cannot be trusted. I went to opticians in Durham and carried out a small survey. I found that at its worst 60 per cent. fewer people were attending for eye examinations than in the year before the charges were introduced. Most disturbingly, the figure proved to be higher for old-age pensioners, especially for those who were not in receipt of income support. Those people have had their right to a free eye test withdrawn and are most likely to suffer the consequences of developing sight-threatening conditions through being discouraged from attending for routine eye examinations. To discourage such people is monstrous, given that many sight-threatening conditions are treatable after early detection.
The Secretary of State does not seem to take any notice of or accept any information supplied by opticians. Letters that I have received from opticians in my constituency show that they are deeply worried. I wrote to every optician in my constituency and they all expressed misgivings. A Mr. Grundy, who has two practices in my constituency, wrote to me saying:

I am very concerned that because these people are now discouraged from attending for routine eye examinations by charges, they are at much greater risk of developing sight threatening conditions which would in the past have been prevented by early detection and treatment.
I accept that the Secretary of State does not place much credence in that, because it is only a letter from an optician, but it is a damning comment on the situation.
Figures from a practice in my constituency show that 170 old-age pensioners who were not in receipt of income support attended for eye tests in the three months leading up to the introduction of charges. In the three months after the introduction of charges the number had dropped to 63. Even taking into account the distortion of the statistics caused by people rushing to get a free eye test before the charges were introduced, there is undoubtedly a marked drop in that practice's normal testing figures.
A worrying aspect of the survey was that a large proportion of the missing numbers were people who received income support but apparently did not realise that they were entitled to a free eye examination. Obviously, that can be serious for pensioners. At one practice the number of old-age pensioners receiving income support had dropped from 86 in the months leading up to charging to 56 after the introduction of charges. I was told by another practice that the receptionist was spending a great deal of her time trying to allay the fears of worried pensioners who did not know their entitlement and for whom the £11·20 is far beyond their means. Unfortunately, only a proportion of those worried pensioners found that they could have a free sight test. The rest, those not in receipt of income support but nevertheless without the means to pay, had to face the decision that they would have to do without the much-needed sight test.

Mr. Keith Bradley: I earned out a similar survey in my constituency and it produced exactly the same results. It showed a reduction of up to 30 per cent. in the number of people going for eye tests. The Secretary of State does not accept the evidence of opticians, but one optician referred to me the case of an 83-year-old woman who thought that she was not entitled to a free eye test. When she realised that she was, the optician examined her and found a tumour in her eye. She was referred to the eye hospital in Manchester and was told that the tumour was so large, because of the delay in having the eye test, that she would probably have to have the eye removed. Is that the sort of health care that we can expect from the Government? Pensioners are scared to go for eye tests because they cannot afford the cost.

Mr. Steinberg: I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. He gives an example of what can happen if an old-age pensioner or anybody else does not get an eye test in time. There are hundreds of such cases throughout the country, and unless the Government recognise what is happening such stories will become all too familiar.
The figures that I have quoted cover the six months from January to June 1989. When the figures are broken down month by month, it is seen that, in the months before charging, the average number of pensioners attending for routine eye tests ranged from 11 to 29. In April, the month in which charges were introduced, the number attending fell to just one or two pensioners. That was true for every practice that supplied me with information. In the following months of May and June, the figure rose to an


average of six or seven. While the initial refusal or inability to pay for sight tests waned slightly, the fact remains that the number of people attending for sight tests has halved. The situation today has hardly improved.
It is an inescapable fact that a sizeable proportion of people, mainly pensioners, no longer attend their optician for a routine eye test. There is no doubt among opticians with whom I have been in contact that there has been no improvement in the past 12 months. While charges remain and while pensioners have to set aside part of their income for the poll tax, there will not be a full return to the pre-April 1989 figures. If nothing else, the Government must consider making all pensioners exempt. Out of a small income, pensioners cannot pay their proportion of the poll tax and pay for a sight test. They will have to make a choice and, as they have to pay the poll tax, they will have to do without the sight test.
Mr. Grundy told me that one of his practices used to rely entirely on pensioners. Now he does not see one pensioner at the practice and has had to reduce the opening times to two days a week. Regular patients at that practice no longer attend, and he attributes the loss purely to the charge for eye tests.
So that I cannot be accused of distorting the statistics by quoting figures for the three months before charging was introduced, I shall quote figures given to me yesterday by Mr. Grundy which leave no doubt about the destructive nature of the charge for eye tests. In January 1988 and January 1989, before the charge was introduced, there were 108 and 118 sight tests respectively. In January 1990, after the charge was introduced, there were 80 sight tests. In February 1988 and February 1989, the figures were 120 and 112 respectively and in February 1990 the number was 68. In March 1988 and March 1989, the figures were 102 and 135 respectively, while in March 1990 the total had dropped to 77.
The figures speak for themselves. In each instance there has been a monthly reduction of between 40 and 60 sight tests following the introduction of charges. That is proof, if proof were needed, of inability and reluctance to pay for a service which should never have been costed. In my constituency—I am sure that it is not unique—there has been a 30 per cent. fall in the number of sight tests. Primary health care is all about prevention and it is imperative that people and prevention are put before pounds.
It is clear from my research and the evidence that has been given to me that the eye-test charge has had a serious effect on the number of people attending opticians. The argument used by some Conservative Members, including, the Secretary of State—I remember clearly the occasion on which he first advanced it—was that market forces would result in so much competition between opticians that charges would be eliminated. That has not happened yet and we wait for evidence that it will. In effect, opticians got together and set the charge for their area. That is not meant to be a criticism of opticians. It is a matter of fact and a natural thing for them to do. They had to do it because there was no alternative.
The criticism must be directed to where the blame lies, and that is with the Secretary of State and the Government generally. There can be no justification for charging for a primary health care measure, especially for one which is able to detect serious medical conditions at an early stage.
It is an especially important test. Even in terms of the Government's philosophy, the charges are not cost effective. It can be said only that the charge is vindictive and that it hits old people in particular. It should be abolished forthwith.

Dame Jill Knight: There are few things that I like less than speaking and voting against the Government. I am happy to say that it is a rare occurrence when I have to do either of those things. For about 99 per cent. of the time I agree entirely with what they do and I support them in Divisions with great enthusiasm and faithfulness. I believe profoundly, however, in following my convictions, and one of my convictions is that one serves the party better by putting convictions above the diktats, arm twisting or threats of the Whips. As I have said on every occasion when charges for eye tests have been debated, the Government are wrong, and for at least seven reasons.
First, charges for eye tests breach the basic principle, which was adhered to for over 40 years, that whatever else is chargeable within the National Health Service, a check or test should be free. I have no objection to charges when a check or test has revealed that glasses or other appliances are necessary, so long as the individual can afford to pay. It is very much to our advantage to know as soon as we can if a person needs attention. It is cheaper to remedy the defect at an early stage and it is very much easier to deal with it. It is also much more likely to be cured.
Secondly, eye-test charges are extremely discriminatory. There are no charges for blood tests, cancer checks, heart scans, barium meals or X-rays. It has been suggested that anyone can afford to pay £12 for a test because some people spend that much on cigarettes, but that argument could just as easily be applied to all other vital tests. It is odd that the Government seem not to understand that eye tests will often reveal the early signs of cancer, blood pressure or diabetes. It is strange that a block should suddently be imposed on one preventive test while other such tests romp along without interference. I do not know whether this means that eventually we are to have charges for other checks. I should like to know whether they are to be introduced.
Thirdly, the money that is saved is not to be spent on projects for which greater need is claimed. It has—[ Interruption.] I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State will listen, because I am speaking with great conviction. It has been made clear in earlier debates that the money that is saved—it had been estimated that it will be about £70 million per annum—will be spent on preventive medicine. It seems that it will not be spent on hip replacements or anything of that sort. Ministers have said that the money saved will be spent on preventive medicine. But eye tests are preventive medicine. It seems that the Government are saying, "We are saving money on food to spend it on food", or, "We are saving money on clothes to spend it on clothes." I am prepared to admit that there are different and more valuable types of food, or types of clothing, but surely there is no suggestion that eye tests are an inferior form of preventive care and do not amount to important primary health care. It is nonsensical to say that we are saving money on preventive care in the form of eye tests so that we can spend it on other forms of preventive care.
Fourthly, it has been recognised and accepted—my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State has not suggested otherwise—that eye tests can reveal the first signs of many serious diseases. There is no doubt about that. It seems absurd that we should be denying ourselves the ability to spot the first signs of important diseases such as heart disease and cancer by introducing charges. That action has led undoubtedly to a reduction in the number of people seeking eye tests. My right hon. and learned Friend has argued that there has been no reduction, but I must tell him that there are signs that he is wrong. Indeed, the signs cannot be doubted. It worries me that the evidence has been discounted because some of the data have been obtained from opticians. The survey of the Association of Optometrists and the Federation of Ophthalmic and Dispensing Opticians revealed a 32·4 per cent. reduction in the number of eye tests being carried out. The Government's statistics are not suspect—they are plainly inaccurate.
I tabled a question in which I asked my hon. Friend the Minister for Health whether she would ensure that the survey, which has been referred to by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State, of the number of tests carried out during the first quarter of 1990 would be based on information obtained from the records of ophthalmic opticians instead of the recollection of patients. My hon. Friend replied that the information would be obtained from patients to ensure that the results were clearly independent. Any medical practitioner in any area of medicine will cheerfully tell my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State that memories are notoriously fallible when determining when a test or check was carried out. It is not uncommon for a doctor to ask a patient when he or she last came to the surgery and to be told that it was two years ago, when in fact it was four years ago. And when a patient says that it was four years since he last came to see the doctor, sometimes it is really eight years. People cannot remember accurately. It seems extraordinary to reach important conclusions on the basis of people's memories.
I could understand my right hon. and learned Friend discounting the statistics given by opticians if they had relied on their memories, but they had not. They relied on their records. I strongly resent any suggestion that ophthalmic opticians—professional medical men—would falsify their records for the purpose of the survey.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: indicated dissent.

Dame Jill Knight: It is a question not just of falsifying statistics for the purpose of this debate but of defrauding the Inland Revenue. If it is true that ophthalmic opticians are deliberately altering their records, something is seriously wrong.

Mr. Dalyell: Did the hon. Lady notice that the Secretary of State shook his head vigorously when she made her point about opticians' records? Perhaps she will ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman whether he thinks that opticians are doing something that borders on the deceitful. Are their records sincerely and accurately kept, or are they not?

Dame Jill Knight: My right hon. and learned Friend's speech will be read with great interest outside this House. He said that the profession was honourable but that he discounted its statistics because the profession itself had

produced them. Surely that is the same as saying that the opticians falsified their records. That is the only possible interpretation that one can place on his remarks.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: Three public surveys have shown that the opticians' figures are wrong. We are debating why they are wrong. It is not for me to comment, because I have not even seen the full results of the survey, but it was not based on records from all opticians. It was based on returns from some opticians. I offered as the most likely explanation for the discrepancy that the opticians most likely to respond to the survey were those who had lost out in the competitiveness of the past two years. The country is full of newly opened opticians' shops.
My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Brandon-Bravo) reminded me that one has just opened in the centre of Nottingham. I do not know to what extent those new businesses responded to the surveys, but they are responsible for the loss of trade by one practice in Durham, which now opens only two days a week. I am making the point that there were three excellent public surveys showing the level of the public's use of outlets, and showing also that the figures produced by the Association of Optometrists were inaccurate.

Dame Jill Knight: The "excellent" surveys to which my right hon. and learned Friend refers were all based on memory. I make the point that memories can be fallible, whereas the records of a practice set down in black and white cannot possibly be challenged.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: Does my hon. Friend agree, as the hon. Member for the City of Durham (Mr. Steinberg) ought to do, that whereas the records of one practice provide an accurate picture of the number of people who have had their eyes tested there, the best way of identifying how many members of the general public have had eye tests is to question the general public? Opticians' practices are opening and closing all the time. One only has to walk down the high streets of England to see that the nature of optical practice is dramatically changing.

Dame Jill Knight: My right hon. and learned Friend may believe that opticians' practices open and close as easily as that, but I assure him that the ones with which I have been connected have been in business since the very beginning of the profession.

Mr. Steinberg: The Secretary of State suggests that I wrote to only one practice. In fact, I wrote to virtually every practice in my constituency, and I received a similar reply from them all. I cited one practice as an example, but I could have cited half a dozen more.

Mr. David Lightbown (Lords Commissioner to tlhe Treasury): indicated dissent.

Dame Jill Knight: I believe that the hon. Member for the City of Durham (Mr. Steinberg) also mentioned that there were slight differences between the responses that he received, which is something that my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South-East (Mr. Lightbown) will be pleased to hear. He imagined that the responses were all exactly the same, and I am glad to have confirmation that they were not.
Another point of significance in view of my right hon. and learned Friend's remarks is that 10,000 people were involved in the Government survey whereas the AOP


survey covered 4 million people. I cannot believe that—surprise, surprise—they all just happened to say much the same thing.
I again draw the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend to the Economists Advisory Group report. The hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) made mention of Professor Peter Hart, who is surely a reputable man, and one who works, as a statistician, in an honourable profession. He is emeritus professor of statistics at Reading university, and a man of his calibre who produces a report on behalf of the Economists Advisory Group can surely be relied upon to give an honest answer.
Professor Hart reported that the number of people undergoing tests since charges were introduced has declined by 32·4 per cent. The hon. Member for Livingston conceded that there was a sharp increase in the number of tests when the public knew that they would shortly be charged. Even so, that jump is estimated to have accounted for fewer than 1 million additional tests. Therefore, whereas the number of eye tests in 1988–89 was 13·2 million, the usual number was 12·2 million annually. Presumably it is fair to say that the extra 1 million tests are accounted for by people trying to beat the charges. In any event, in 1989–90 the number of tests fell to 8·9 million. That must be a source of worry and concern to my right hon. and learned Friend. That is hard data—3·3 million people, more or less, have been deterred from having eye tests.
Fifthly, it is untrue to say that people who are not eligible for free tests can easily afford the £12 fee. My right hon. and learned Friend argued today that it is likely that tests will eventually be free—but that cannot happen, for two reasons. One is that, as a result of laws passed by our Government, anyone is entitled to go to an optician, undergo a test and be given a prescription—and then take it down the road to a spectacle bar and have it made up there. It is breaking the law for an optician to say, "I will test your eyes provided that you buy your spectacles from us." First, opticians may not get any return or any possibility of a return when they have spent time and professional expertise on testing someone's eyes. Secondly, some 20 to 25 per cent. of all people who go to have their eyes tested do not need glasses, and therefore opticians would not be able to recoup any funds. A figure approaching 50 per cent. of ophthalmic opticians' time could be spent on such people, and if they did tests for nothing they would get no return. How on earth can professional people who have trained for some four years, and who know what they are about, open a practice and keep it open and pay receptionists and all the other charges involved if they get no return for 45 or 50 per cent. of the time that they work? It is not feasible.
I must tell my right hon. and learned Friend that it is highly unlikely that eye tests will ever be free. I do not understand why he said so, unless, perhaps—this thought just struck me—he is saying that people who need glasses would pay extra to make up for other people having tests free who did not need them. There is no other way of achieving free tests.
Sometimes I think that we do not all understand how difficult some people find it to make ends meet. We should always be sympathetic to that. People are being pressurised by mortgage costs and have all sorts of other

difficulties to meet in their financial lives. Not everyone who is not entitled to a free eye test has no problem in finding £12 and we have to recognise that. It is not even a case of tests once every two years, because some people need them every six months. A woman who wrote to me recently was in that position because of a congenital eye problem, but she was not eligible for free tests.
I have always worried about the problems of parents, who put their young and growing children first. I wonder how many of us know what it is to keep a young child in shoes, never mind anything else. I am quite sure that many parents will say that there might not be anything wrong with their eyes this time, and "Johnny needs new shoes".
The other category of people who worry me are the elderly. There is no doubt that they are up to five times more likely to suffer from eye disease or degeneration than younger people. While it is perfectly true that not all elderly people need help from the Government, why do we give elderly people free prescriptions? If they are old-age pensioners they get free prescriptions whatever their income. Yet it would be fair to say that many prescriptions are not as important as having an eye test. Why have free prescriptions but make people pay for eye tests? Many old persons may well go blind if they cannot afford an eye test and that worries me greatly.
People can have free eye tests at hospitals, and more and more people outside this place will recognise that and ask their doctors to give them a chit to get such tests at the hospital. We shall be in trouble because the cost of a hospital eye test to the Government is somewhere between £25 and £50. I have checked that and there is no doubt about it; it is true. Where is the economic sense of paying up to £50 for someone to have an eye test in a hospital, but failing to pay £12 to a trained ophthalmic optician to do the test instead? Pretty soon, pressure on eye departments will cause problems, because people will wake up to the fact that they can have free tests there. I do not believe that they have realised that.
My final point knocks on the head for ever my right hon. and learned Friend's obviously sincere belief that there has been no drop in the number of eye tests. Practice closures can be seen all over the country. Some 250 practices closed this year and many rural areas will be without an optometrist. I must warn hon. Members about that. There seems to be a general disinclination in this place to love opticians. I sometimes wonder how many hon. Members, or their mothers, were frightened by an ophthalmic optician. There has been a sustained campaign against opticians. However, it is true that if the closures, which are now inevitable, take place in rural areas, many people who desperately need health care, and who are entitled to get it for nothing, will not be able to get that care. That also worries me.
I predict that there will probably be a loss of some 10 per cent. of ophthalmic practices within the next year because many of them are now working from hand to mouth. However much my right hon. and learned Friend tries to deny it, it is true that many ophthalmic opticians are going out of business. That is neither wise nor right. I beg my right hon. Friends in the Government to consider the possibility of helping the aged, who are in far greater danger than anyone else. If they cannot do anything else, for goodness' sake will they give special help to pensioners?

Mr. Charles Kennedy: The hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Dame J. Knight), as is traditionally the case, speaks on this subject with detailed insight and common sense. However, perhaps what is most significant is that, as the first speaker from the Conservative Back Benches, she spoke not one word of support for her own Secretary of State. Not that that is liable to sway him, as he does not seem to be a Secretary of State who wants to listen to information or to consult individuals or organisations in various fields of health care. Indeed, he has something of a track record, and clearly delights in the way that he does not consult those people with knowledge within the field of his ministerial responsibility whom common sense would suggest that he should consult.
If one wants to buy a car, it is likely that one will want to ask friends who drive motor vehicles how they find different cars, and to discover the consumer and public view. The chances are that one will also speak to a car salesman or a mechanic. Similarly, the Secretary of State today laid weight upon a survey which has just been published at last. I find it a completely frustrating feature of this institution that, on the day that we are debating the issue, the information on which the conclusions in the Secretary of State's speech are based becomes available only when his backside hits the green leather at the end of his speech. That does not make for well-informed debate from Conservative Members or from the Opposition.
In the latter stages of his speech, the Secretary of State was like a drowning man clutching at the one piece of flotsam floating past.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: Let me explain, in case it is thought that publishing it today was a device, that we intended to publish the survey next week. The hon. Gentleman knows that at the last minute the Labour party decided to table this motion. As my enemies had delivered themselves into my hands by returning to this corny old subject, I was unable to resist the temptation to bring it forward today. It contains the best and the most accurate information that anybody has to hand about the number of people having eye tests.

Mr. Kennedy: There is a veneer of plausibility about that, but it contains a number of extremely contentious points. I concede that the topic for debate was changed at short notice, but even if it had been known that the debate would be held at the end of this year, the Secretary of State would not have made the information available until the end of his speech on that occasion.

Mr. Michael: Does not the hon. Gentleman at least welcome the fact that the debate was brought forward because of widespread and serious concern about the topic?

Mr. Kennedy: I agree with the hon. Gentleman.
The Secretary of State is unwilling to consult those who are most affected and those with the best knowledge—the opticians. The Secretary of State's report, published today, refers to the survey of over 1,700 opticians that was carried out by the Liberal Democrats some months ago. On 17 May 1990, the Under-Secretary of State for Health wrote to me thanking me for enclosing the results of the Liberal Democrat optical survey, but he echoed the Secretary of State's argument that there is no point in consulting the

professionals because they have an axe to grind. The only people whom the Government want to consult are the consumers; that is the only way to get the answers that the Government want. The Under-Secretary went on to say:
It would, therefore, be wrong to rely entirely on information supplied by providers alone.
According to the survey that we have heard about this afternoon, it is quite all right for the Secretary of State to rely entirely on information provided only by consumers. The sense of that, both in the English language and in terms of the Government's health policy, is that the Secretary of State is trying to get a judicial blend in order to inform his actions concerning what both the professionals—the optometrists—and patients have found out for themselves. The optometrist surveys that have been referred to in the debate unanimously gave a thumbs down to the Secretary of State's policy. The Secretary of State's survey of consumers alone provides different information and he bases his entire argument on that information.
That is in complete contrast to the logic of the statement made to me on 17 May by the Under-Secretary of State for Health. Dismissing all the surveys that had been made before the Department of Health survey, which has floated down, like manna from heaven, on to the Secretary of State's lap today, the Under-Secretary of State for Health said on 17 May about all the previous surveys:
They cannot at this stage be taken as a serious indicator of future trend.
By 6 June, the one survey that the Secretary of State has come out with is the definitive indicator of future trend. It is the one to end all arguments and all debate. That is the kind of nonsense with which we are being entertained by the Secretary of State and his colleagues in the Department of Health.
The Secretary of State quoted selectively from today's so-called definitive five-star results. According to the summary on the front page:
Whilst there is a disparity between NOP's results for NHS sight testing and the known number of NHS sight tests paid for in the first quarter of 1990, there is no evidence, from this survey, of a fall in sight testing in the first quarter of 1990.
A little more detail about the disparity is to be found in paragraph 6.2:
The disparity between NOP's results for NHS sight testing and the known number of NHS sight tests paid for casts some doubt on the credibility of the results.
I am happy to let those who devised and carried out the survey speak for themselves.
The Secretary of State has ignored the Association of Optometrists, the British Medical Association's ophthalmic committee and the Royal National Institute for the Blind. He bases his entire argument on the survey that has just come into his hands. However, the hon. Member for Edgbaston made the forceful point that many of the questions asked in the survey were unlikely to elicit an accurate response because they depended on human memory rather than on factual information provided from the records of optometrists and opticians.

Mr. Churchill: The hon. Gentleman rightly draws attention to the fact that the Secretary of State's NOP survey shows that there is a clear discrepancy. What he has failed to allude to is the scale of that discrepancy, which appears to be quite colossal. Perhaps


the Secretary of State, or the Minister of State who is to wind up the debate, will comment on it. According to paragraph 6.1 of the NOP survey:
The estimate of NHS sight tests derived from the NOP survey can be compared with data collected from FPCs and Health Boards. 1·058 million were paid for by FPCs in England and Wales and Health Boards in Scotland in the first quarter of 1990. Of these, 0·624 million were adults aged 16 or over; this represents 1·4 per cent. of the adult population. The first two surveys conducted by the NOP suggest that 4·5 per cent… of the adult population had an NHS sight test in the period.
In other words, the NOP survey shows more than three times as many people saying that they remember having a sight test since Christmas than the Secretary of State's own figures suggest. Therefore, I query what value can be placed on the document.

Mr. Kennedy: The hon. Gentleman ought to be given a knighthood. I very much welcome his intervention. The Secretary of State is uncharacteristically silent. I have read the speech that the hon. Gentleman made on the subject in a previous debate. I believe that he has touched on a pertinent point. Whether we shall receive a pertinent answer remains to be seen.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: I had not realised that my interventions were so popular, which is why I remained silent. The explanation is contained in the report. Many people think that the sight test that they pay for is an NHS sight test. The survey is not reliable in terms of the figures that it publishes about how many people have had NHS or private eye tests. We are concerned with the total number of eye tests. As I said in my speech, one could knock off 50 per cent. for errors. We could find every reason that we liked for error, and we should still come up with a figure that showed no decline in the number of eye tests, compared with the expected trend.

Mr. Churchill: But this is a 400 per cent. error.

Mr. Kennedy: As I am sure the hon. Gentleman appreciates, inflation and interest rates are going up, so why should not the margin of error here go up by a similar amount? That is a feature of the running of the country by this Government.
The hon. Member for Edgbaston made a legitimate case, but the Secretary of State has not responded to it. He has produced a fail-safe survey. It does not purport to be fail-safe, but it is based on individual human memory as opposed to facts held on record by opticians. There can be no doubt which survey is more accurate.
I would concede that simply to consult opticians, as we did in our survey, does not give as good a result as consulting a proper statistical blend of customers and opticians as it is reasonable to draw on customers' impressions as well. However, the input of opticians is critical to any set of findings, whatever proportion of those findings they represent.
The simple truth is that the opticians provide the only reliable facts available. Statistics drawn from the public are bound to include impressions, whereas the opticians provide hard evidence. If the Secretary of State is seriously questioning the accuracy or veracity of the facts provided by opticians, as he did in his speech in reply to the hon.
Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook), he is bound to be casting some aspertions on the opticians. There are no two ways about it, and he cannot get away from it.
I adhere to the view that, whatever one may say about the various surveys that have been carried out, including our own, to base his entire argument, as the Secretary of State has done today, on one survey in preference to or in complete opposition to all the other surveys is surely bizarre and wrong-headed in the extreme.
Given the Secretary of State's track record and the way he goes about things in the Department of Health, I suspect that he did that simply because it is the only survey so far that has given him a fig leaf against the warnings uttered to him by his own Back Benchers and from the Opposition. I suspect that, yet again, as he did with the nurses and the ambulance men in the past and as he continues to do with family doctors, he has now picked another group of professionals in the Health Service and offended and alienated them by the tenor of his remarks today. He will live to regret it, as preventive health regrets the decision to introduce these wrong-headed charges on 1 April 1989.

Mr. Michael Brown: I shall not detain the House for long, but I want to make it absolutely clear that I reject what has been said by the hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye (Mr. Kennedy) and by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Dame J. Knight). I have always believed that it is right in principle to charge those who can afford it relatively small amounts of money at the periphery of the National Health Service. That policy was started not by the present Government nor the last Labour Government but by the post-war Labour Government. That Government recognised that it was important to raise additional funds which could not be sustained out of general taxation because of the bottomless pit with which the Health Service is sometimes faced, and successive Governments have followed that principle.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State has courageously and correctly faced up to the fact that the Department of Health can raise an additional £70 million of expenditure for primary health care from people like me.
I have been wearing glasses for the past two years. I came to the House in 1979, and at the age of 27 I had the good fortune of not needing to wear glasses. By pure coincidence in 1988 I was driving my car through Lincolnshire when I heard on my car radio that Lincolnshire police were planning to conduct spot sight tests for drivers. I was frightened and worried and decided to have my eyes tested. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State paid for me to have a free sight test, notwithstanding the fact that I cheerfully paid £98 for my glasses.
The hon. Member for City of Durham (Mr. Steinberg) mentioned various statistics. In 1988 an individual from the constituency of Brigg and Cleethorpes went to an optician in Pimlico for a free eye test. I have not had my eyes tested since; I was issued with these glasses two years ago and no doubt I shall receive a card from the optician inviting me back for a periodic eye test. I am a classic example of somebody who has no business to be receiving


taxpayers' money for an eye test. I went to have my eyes tested in 1988 and I have not had them tested since. That is why statistics in Durham are producing those results.

Mr. Churchill: I am sure that, on reflection, my hon. Friend will appreciate that his free eye test was paid for not by the Secretary of State but by the taxpayer. While he and the House will accept that no one is arguing today that those on above average earnings, such as himself or the printers in Wapping and what is left of Fleet street, should get taxpayers' money to pay for their eye tests, would he regard it as reasonable and right that one of my constituents who is earning less than a quarter of average earnings should be required to pay the full cost of a sight test? I cannot accept that. That individual should be entitled to a free eye test.

Mr. Brown: Plainly, my hon. Friend has not read the motion that we are debating. I am opposing a motion which
calls upon Her Majesty's Government to restore a free preventive service for eye examinations.
In 1988, quite wrongly, the taxpayer—my hon. Friend is absolutely right about that—paid for me to benefit from such a service. So, with great respect to my hon. Friend, unless we amend it the motion is inviting us to do that and that is why I believe that it should be opposed.
My hon. Friend the Member for Edgbaston argued wrongly for free eye tests for all pensioners. I know that my hon. Friend looks very youthful, but I believe that she would be entitled to such a free eye test. I know that one should not discuss an hon. Lady's age in the Chamber, but we all know from Vacher's when my hon. Friend the Member for Edgbaston was born. I am sure that she would be the first to acknowledge that she and many pensioners in the United Kingdom are on above average earnings and should not receive free eye tests.

Mr. Dennis Turner: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Brown: I apologise to the hon. Gentleman, but I have given way already and I do not wish to detain the House as other hon. Members want to speak.
The Government's proposals which were put into effect last year enable 20 million people, or nearly 40 per cent. of the population, to receive free eye tests. Those 20 million people consist of all children under 16, those on low incomes, the blind and partially sighted, students under 19 and people suffering from glaucoma. That is not unreasonable bearing in mind the fact that money is being released as a result of the peripheral charge which Opposition Members accepted, when they were in government and when they created the National Health Service, it was right and proper for the Health Service to raise from the taxpayer.
A not too dissimilar argument is whether those of us who can afford to pay prescription charges should do so. I shudder to think of the "ceaseless cascade" of medicine that is pouring down British throats. The Opposition should remember who said that.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Bevan.

Mr. Brown: My hon. Friend is nearly right. Because free medicine was available indiscriminately, that comment was made by the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale in 1949, the great defender of the National Health Service.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: It was Bevan.

Mr. Brown: The right hon. Member recognised in 1949 that funds were distributed indiscriminately across the board to people who could afford to pay.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: My hon. Friend is wrong. It was Bevan.

Mr. Brown: My hon. Friend says that it was Aneurin Bevan, but I have a quote from the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Bevan was the Member for Ebbw Vale.

Mr. Brown: No less a person than Aneurin Bevan made that statement. The right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) and the former Member for Ebbw Vale, who both served in the 1945 to 1950 Parliament, recognised that there was a case for having peripheral charges for those able to pay, just like many Members and people outside the Chamber.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Brown: I would give way were it not for the fact that this is a short debate and I have promised to be brief.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Be a sport.

Mr. Brown: I give way, briefly.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Is it not significant that Aneurin Bevan, who was supposed to be the father of the Health Service, complained about the "ceaseless cascade"? He was the Member for Ebbw Vale.

Mr. Brown: I entirely accept what my hon. Friend says. My hon. Friend and I would agree that that Labour Government established a principle followed by all successive Governments, notwithstanding the fact that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett) said, for three years the Labour Government abolished prescription charges, only to restore them in 1968 at a rate 25 per cent. higher. All Governments have recognised the principle of charging for those peripheral services, and I include eye tests, for the reason that I described.
The Government have honoured their commitment in last year's debate. The fact that 40 per cent. of the population—20 million people—receive free eye tests shows that this is a properly targeted measure. The Government are right to ensure that an additional £70 million is available for the primary health care services. I shall have no hesitation in throwing out the Opposition's motion.

Mrs. Alice Mahon: What appals me most about the Government's attitude to health is that they have blatantly and unashamedly politicised pain and suffering. This is another deliberate policy that is designed to damage the National Health Service. The performance of the Secretary of State will find great favour with the Prime Minister, because it is business as usual, despite the massive amount of factual evidence that the ending of free eye examinations has led to a dramatic fall in the number of eye tests, with dangerous results for the health of millions of people.
I agree with the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Dame J. Knight) that evidence is available if the Government choose to seek it—in the audited records of opticians to which ophthalmic committees have access and which community health councils could monitor. Means-tested benefits carry a stigma, as is shown by the low take-up. If the Prime Minister or the Secretary of State had an elderly relative on a low income who needed an eye test but was deterred because of cost or because he or she did not wish to fill in a lengthy form or take part in means-testing, and that person were in danger of developing glaucoma or a tumour that could be cured if found in time, they would have to explain that they were against any collective provision for individual need at the time of need and paid for through taxation, whatever the pain or suffering caused. They would have to say sorry but, as the amendment states,
those who can afford to pay for sight tests should do so".
That would be their message, without any regard to a person's ability to pay and to choice.
My hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) talked about the dramatic fall in the number of people receiving eye tests. The Secretary of State said that there had been no fall-off in eye testing and that there was an opinion poll to prove it, yet he does not believe in the poll results. The right hon. and learned Gentleman could look at the audited records in every practice and collect the data if he wanted that information, but I suspect that he does not want it.
Like my hon. Friends in their constituencies, I have been keeping an eye on the position in mine. I checked today with the local ophthalmic committee, the community health council and some local opticians who were worried, and I saw the latest survey which had been conducted by the ophthalmic committee, monitored and overseen by the CHC. The first survey, for the six months from April 1989 to October 1989, showed that the number of tests had fallen by 34 per cent. The second survey, from October 1989 to April 1990, showed that the number was still down by 32 per cent., which appears now to be the permanent level. That figure is the same as the one arrived at by the professor of statistics at Reading university. I would argue that that is a more realistic figure than the ones used by the Secretary of State.
It will come as no surprise to my hon. Friends to hear that 32 per cent. is just an average; sometimes it is more than 40 per cent. in more deprived areas in my constituency. That is a fair measure of what is happening locally. Conservative Members should look at the surveys carried out in their constituencies and then argue in the House about the pathetic attempt by the Secretary of State to use the NOP survey. Despite all the facts, we are still subjected to the self-righteous ranting of the right hon. and learned Gentleman, and the self-righteousness shown in the amendment tabled by the Prime Minister. Neither the Secretary of State nor the Prime Minister is deaf. They know exactly what is happening and that the 32 per cent. fall-off is nearer the truth than their figures.
The hon. Member for Edgbaston made a point, which is worth repeating, about the costs that will result when people cotton on to the fact that they can have an eye test carried out free at an ophthalmic clinic. I asked about the local cost and the hon. Lady said that it would be between

£25 and £50, an average of £35 in my constituency, for referral by a general practitioner compared with £11·20 for referral by an optician.
There is no legal argument for abolishing free eye tests. If people cotton on to going to hospitals for tests, it will cost the NHS a great deal of money. While preparing for this debate, I discovered that there is a seven-month waiting list at the ophthalmic clinic in my constituency. That is tragic. However, Ministers, and those who support the Government and their onslaught on the NHS, will not be found in those tragic queues because, like the Prime Minister, they can buy their way to the top.
The current crisis in the National Health Service and the Government's policy on eye tests have been created deliberately because the Prime Minister loathes the NHS. The ending of free eye tests is part of the Prime Minister's determination to dismantle the whole structure of post-war social provision and end what she sees as the hated socialist ideal. She deliberately seeks to lower standards of patient care and to produce a two-tier system. That system exists now. If someone has some money and is okay financially, he can have a test and benefit from it. However, if someone is on a low income and worried about a budget or concerned about water bills for which there is no rebate, and the poll tax, he will lose out.
I have a message for the Government from Mr. Bruce, who is the director-general of the Royal National Institute for the Blind. He referred to people missing out on eye tests and the possible subsequent identification of medical conditions. He said:
Unnecessary blindness is not something to be proud of.
I believe that political myopia is something to be downright ashamed of, and that is what the Government are suffering from with regard to eye testing.

Mr. John Maples: If the hon. Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon) believes that the Government are deliberately embarked on a policy of destroying the Health Service, she must consider why expenditure on the Health Service has risen by 40 per cent. in real terms under this Government while it fell in one year under the last Labour Government when they slashed hospital building programme capital allocations by 30 per cent. If we consider the statistics which show who has done what for the Health Service, there is no contest.
The hon. Member for Halifax became bogged down in the statistical argument which, to some extent, has sidetracked our debate. We have moved away from the basic principles. We should all be suspicious about statistics because politicians have a predilection for picking the statistics that suit their arguments. I was surprised by the readiness with which the Opposition swallowed the propaganda from professional organisations about the Health Service reforms. They swallowed the British Medical Assocition's propaganda hook, line and sinker.
We all remember the lawyers objecting to reforms in the legal profession and we viewed those objections with healthy scepticism. We said to ourselves, "The lawyers know a lot about it and they are worth listening to, but they are talking their book." It is amazing that the Opposition do not say the same thing about doctors and opticians. We need to know more about the survey of opticians because there might, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State said, be some


self-selection in the sample. If that is the case, the survey is biased in that it has answers from opticians whose business has fallen off over the past year.
I have some evidence that I would like to adduce. I believe that a foolproof indication of whether there are problems with matters such as charges for eye tests is the constituency mail bag. I have received not one complaint about charges for eye or dental tests. If things are free, people are more likely to use them out of interest or from a need to feel secure. I suspect that many people probably had one eye test a year when tests were free while the general reckoning is that a test every two years is necessary. Many of those unnecessary tests have dropped out of the total.
Another adjustment to the statistics arises from the fact that when a charge is to be introduced, many people rush in and have a test for free. A figure of 1 million has been used with regard to eye tests. However, the adjustment is not 1 million; it is 2 million. One million people who would have had a test in the year after charges were introduced had a test the year before. The adjustment to be made in the discrepancy in the figures is not 1 million, but 2 million. If that adjustment is made, the figures look more realistic. Having said that, it would be useful in the context of this debate to have accurate figures to show the results of the change in charges for eye tests.
One of the basic principles is that we are talking about a large amount of money. Introducing the charge saves £90 million. To that we must add the £50 million which would be the cost for reintroducing free dental checks. That total of nearly £150 million a year is the cost of three district general hospitals. I cannot believe that any responsible Secretary of State for Health, were he Labour or Conservative, would choose free eye and dental checks instead of three new district general hospitals. I would not choose free tests and I cannot believe that any of my hon. Friends would either.

Mr. Keith Vaz: Is that the choice?

Mr. Maples: Of course it is. If we reinstate free tests, the £150 million must come from somewhere.
The only substantial argument against charges is that of deterrence. Do charges deter people from having tests? The Opposition constantly cause scares when charges are introduced. When the voucher scheme for spectacles was introduced in 1983, the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher), as usual, went over the top. He said:
The result for the public will be eye strain and headaches at best. At worst, it will be inability to see clearly so that they are at risk in their work, a hazard on the road or otherwise may injure themselves".—[Official Report, 20 December 1983; Vol. 51, c. 306.]
That was his prediction. However, the opticians' business did not fall off; instead, the price of spectacles fell and that is exactly what the Government predicted.
We hear these scares from the Opposition time and again. Every time dental charges were raised over the past 10 years, the Opposition said the same thing, but there has been a steady increase in the courses of dental treatment. They have increased by 20 per cent. over the past 10 years. I suspect that each rise in charges brings a slight drop in the service partly because people defer treatment which they would otherwise have carried out immediately and partly because they have treatment before the charges are raised. However, after that the general trend picks up. Dentistry surveys have shown that the cost of the

treatment—we must remember that only the test was free—is the fourth most important factor. The most important factor is that people say to themselves that there is no need for a dental check; the second factor is pain; and the third is the difficulty of finding a good dentist. The cost was the fourth factor. We must consider whether costs are the deterrent that Opposition Members make them out to be in an attempt to stir up a scare.

Mr. Turner: Does the hon. Gentleman know where the cheapest spectacles can be found now? They are to be found in markets all over the country. There are hundreds of thousands of spectacles on stalls. People try on the spectacles and try to read the book provided on the stall. That is how spectacles were sold in this country 50 years ago and that is what we are getting back to. That is where people who cannot afford eye tests are going to get something to suit their eyes.

Mr. Maples: That is happening to a limited extent.

Mr. Turner: It is a disgrace.

Mr. Maples: Yes, and it certainly should not happen. To the extent that it is happening, it is limited and it happened when there were free eye tests as well.

Mr. Turner: No.

Mr. Maples: It certainly did. The argument is that it has happened since changes were made in the way that spectacles were paid for. There is no evidence that what the hon. Gentleman described has happened only since April last year.
The logic of the argument about deterrence should extend beyond the test because only the test was free. One always had to pay a contribution towards dental work or for the spectacles that might or might not have been needed after a test. If the Opposition are to take their argument about deterrence to its logical extreme, the tests should be free as well, and the cost would become far more than £150 million.
Let us suppose that the Opposition are right and that there is a deterrent. I shall refer to glaucoma later, because it is serious. Apart from that, what are the consequences? They are that people will walk round wearing the wrong glasses for slightly longer than they used to, or they will have toothache. They are not exactly life-threatening conditions, whereas the £150 million can be spent on alleviating real suffering. As always in politics and public spending, there is a trade-off.

Mr. Turner: The hon. Gentleman is talking about hospital beds and putting people into hospital beds when they do not need to be there. They would not need to be in those beds for operations because they would have received preventive treatment. Why does the hon. Gentleman cast mean motives on professional people by suggesting that they are prducing false statistics on fewer eye tests? Why does he say that people had eye tests when they did not need them only because they were free? Why does not the hon. Gentleman take people on genuine trust and regard them as honest?

Mr. Maples: I rely on the results of the NOP survey, which proved exactly the opposite to what the hon. Gentleman is trying to deduce. As for his point about


hospital beds being filled up with people who need hip operations because they cannot have eye tests, that is rubbish. The hon. Gentleman should analyse—

Mr. Turner: I said eye operations.

Mr. Maples: The hon. Gentleman did not. He said operations in general. The idea that free eye tests were somehow the early diagnosis of all sorts of acute hospital cases is the most awful rubbish.

Dame Jill Knight: A moment or two ago, my hon. Friend said it was not serious to be wandering round wearing the wrong glasses. I assure my hon. Friend that if one is driving a car it is very serious to be wearing the wrong glasses.

Mr. Maples: I do not think that anybody who owns a car will have any difficulty in coming up with £10 for an eye test.
Who are the people who are being asked to pay the £10 or £12 and of what consequence is it to them? We know that the exemptions cover children, pregnant mothers and people on income support and family credit—about 35 per cent. to 40 per cent. of the population. The other 60 per cent. who are being asked to pay have had amazing increases in their take-home pay over the past 10 years. The cut-off for family credit is about three quarters of average earnings. Somebody on three quarters of average earnings has had an increase in his take-home pay of £2,084 over the past 10 years. If he were on average earnings, he would have had an increase of over £3,000 in his take-home pay, and, even on half average earnings, which is now £7,500 a year, he would have had an increase of £1,500 in take-home pay.
All levels of earnings at which people might be asked to pay the £10 have had increases in take-home pay of over £1,500 in the past 10 years. In that context, it is palpable nonsense to suggest that £12 every other year is a significant item in a family budget. It cannot feature at all. We are talking about a cost of £6 a year to have an eye test every other year to somebody whose income has increased by at least £1,500 over that period. It is not unreasonable to ask people as they become better off to make some contribution at the margin to their health care. It basically affects only those whose household incomes have increased by more than £1,500 per year. As my hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett) pointed out, the average family spends £10 a week on alcohol. We are suggesting that they should spend £10 every two years on an eye test.
Glaucoma is more serious. Undoubtedly, eye tests show it up early in some cases, but the eye test was never a screening process for glaucoma. If it is thought as a matter of public policy that we should screen for glaucoma, we should do it some other way than through a random eye test, whether it is free or paid for. The Government have acknowleged that by making a special exemption for people who are more likely to have glaucoma or who are related to people who have it—there is a large hereditary element in it. To a substantial extent, that matter is taken care of.
As I have already said, one third, or perhaps even 40 per cent., of the population do not have to pay for the eye test, and the other 60 per cent. have had such substantial

increases in income that the charge cannot be a deterrent that could lead to serious consequences. We are going through a time when people are able, willing and prepared to take greater responsibility for themselves and not to expect the state to do everything for them. As their real incomes rise, it is the policy of the Government, which I wholly applaud—it is one reason why I got into politics—that they should be left with more of their income in their pockets through less taxation and more of the responsibility for paying for things for themselves where they can. At the very best, it is patronising for the Opposition to suggest that they are not capable or responsible for making that decision and that they are likely to be deterred from taking care of their health by a charge that averages out at £6 a year.
An interesting way of looking at that argument is that, in 1988, the year when the charges were debated and when the legislation was passed the Opposition objected to a 2p income tax cut in the Budget. They said that the money should have been spent on improving the Health Service. That cut in income tax is worth £180 a year to someone on average earnings. The charge for an eye test is £12 every other year. The Opposition suggested that those who would have preferred that additional £180 not to be given back to them but to be spent on the Health Service are so stupid, shortsighted or mean-minded that they will not spend £12 every two years, having had a £180 a year tax saving, on an eye test. It does not add up.
If people are willing, as the Opposition argued at the time, for the money to be spent on the Health Service, surely they are willing to spend a fraction of that amount on one item of health care, which is obviously a sensible way to protect the health of their eyes. It is patronising and silly to suggest that people are not responsible for themselves. Clearly they can come up with £10 or £12 a year.
The Government need no lectures from the Labour party on the funding and management of the Health Service. Over the past 10 years, the Government have spent £3 for every £1 that the Labour party spent on it—an increase in real terms of 40 per cent. That increase in real terms is £9 billion. We spend more than £40 a week for every family of four on the Health Service. There are thousands more doctors——

Mr. Turner: It is not enough.

Mr. Maples: It will never be enough if the service is free, in the sense that we will never be able to remove all the waiting lists. All that I can say is that it is an awful lot more than the previous Labour Government spent.
We have the largest-ever hospital building programme. We treat more patients as in-patients, out-patients and day cases, and we need no lectures from the Opposition on the funding of the Health Service.
It is interesting to look at the Opposition's policy review, which they euphemistically call "Looking to the Future". It seems to be a giant step back to the 1960s. There are no commitments to spend any additional money on health care. However, there is a commitment to
bring back free eye tests and dental checks.
There is also a commitment to abolish competitive tendering. Those three things together will cost £200 million and will not deliver one iota of additional health care. They will not improve health care one little bit. If that £200 million were available, it would build four new district general hospitals every year. The Opposition are


saying that they would choose to spend it on removing those three things which are purely political dogma—they are not related to health care at all.
If one extends the logic of the Opposition's argument to prescription charges, which they were going to remove at one time, and to providing free glasses and free dental care which, if the charge for a test is a deterrent, must equally be a deterrent, one is talking of a sum well in excess of £1 billion. That sum would add absolutely nothing to the quantity of health care delivered to the public. It is extraordinary that, in the Opposition's document, the future of the Health Service rates one page, half of which is taken up with community care. There are no commitments to additional spending apart from the ones that I have mentioned. Even the ones that are mentioned must be taken with a pinch of salt.
In the public expenditure debate, the hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett), who has some responsibility for the Labour party's attitude to public spending, said:
What we are promising is an increase for pensioners and an increase in child benefit. Everything else that is regarded as a desirable aim is also listed, quite clearly and specifically, as something that we hope to do as resources allow."—[Official Report, 13 February 1990; Vol. 167, c. 179.]
It is difficult to know whether the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) has co-ordinated his policy with that of his hon. Friend. One assumes that he has, but there is a conflict between the commitments made in "Looking to the Future" and what the hon. Member for Derby, South said. The hon. Lady made her statement categorically and reiterated it twice in response to interventions from my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury. She said that that was all that the Labour party would commit itself to doing if it were to come into government.
If what the hon. Lady said is correct, what the hon. Member for Livingston said about £200 million for abolishing competitive tendering and the charges for eye and dental check-ups is on the wish list. In other words, the Labour party is saying, "These are the things that we should like to do if resources allow." Well, we do that—if resources allow, we increase the resources that are given to the National Health Service, which is why we have been able to spend an additional £9 billion on it. One suspects that those things are not Labour party commitments, and that they are part of the letter to Santa Claus which the hon. Member for Livingston is puffing up the chimney with the smoke and which the hon. Member for Derby, South, who is sitting at the top, is tearing up unless its commitments refer to child benefit or pensions. I hope that I have the attention of the hon. Member for Livingston.
When the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) replies to the debate, it will be interesting to hear whether those three items—abolishing competitive tendering and reintroducing free eye and dental check-ups—are absolute commitments on the part of the Labour party when it forms its next Government, and whether they override the equally categorical statement by the hon. Member for Derby, South in the public expenditure debate on 13 February.
The Labour party seems to be trying to talk out of both sides of its mouth at the same time. On the one side, the Treasury spokesmen are trying to reassure the City, the markets, the press and the taxpayers that they are not trying to pick their pocket to a large extent to pay for a major public expenditure programme, while on the other

side the Labour party is trying to say to the voters, "Of course, we shall spend billions of pounds on transport, education and health." Of course, the only reason for ever electing a Labour Government is that they would raise more money in taxes and spend it on public services.
However, the Labour party will be rumbled because taxpayers and consumers are exactly the same people and they will realise that the Labour party is delivering two totally different messages. One message says, "We shall spend a lot more money", and the other says, "We shall not spend any more money." It will be interesting to have that contradiction resolved. I repeat that taxpayers and consumers are the same people and they will rumble the con trick that the Labour party is trying to perpetrate on them.
In conclusion, our changes seem a sensible way of ensuring an additional £90 million for the Health Service. If one adds in the dental checks, a total of £140 million is available to be spent on better and more constructive things and on alleviating real suffering and life-threatening conditions. The structure exempts vulnerable people from the charges. Those who are liable to the charges have had enormous increases in their take-home pay in the past 10 years. Those on half average incomes have received a minimum of £1,500. It is not unreasonable to ask those people to pay £12 every two years. The Labour party's opposition to the charges—just like its opposition to competitive tendering—is pure political dogma. Changing the system would not deliver one iota more health care. It makes absolutely no sense to reverse the change. It is right as a matter of principle to reduce people's taxes and to leave them with more money in their own pockets and more responsibility for taking care of themselves. On the whole, people behave responsibly and it is patronising to suggest that they do not.

Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones (Ynys Môn): I listened carefully to the hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Maples). With every speech by a Conservative Member we seem to hear higher figures for the money that the Government have saved as a result of not having free tests. We have heard £70 million, £90 million and even £150 million being quoted. It has even been said that we could have three new general hospitals as a result of the savings. What utter nonsense. Even Ministers have said that the money that is saved will be spent on primary health care—and whoever heard of the building of three new general hospitals being part of any Government's primary health care budget?
I also listened with great care to the Secretary of State. He said that the Government intend to give everyone the service that they require. However, he then spent half an hour telling us why the Government could not give everyone the service that they need. He also said that, even after the introduction of the changes, the Government were still paying for the tests of the third of the population who qualify for income support, and we know that the take-up of income support has been extremely low. Unfortunately, therefore, a number of people who would qualify for free tests if they applied for the income support, to which they are entitled, are not receiving free eye tests.
We all agree that the average charge is between £12 and £15. Although many right hon. and hon. Members can no


doubt afford £12 or £15, many people cannot. Unfortunately, the people who will be hit hardest are the most vulnerable in our society.
The decision to abolish free eye tests disproportionately affects the elderly. The hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) said that many elderly people can afford to pay for their eye tests and referred to the average income of elderly people. However, the average income of elderly people is skewed by the fact that the income of the top one fifth accounts for a disproportionate amount of the income of all elderly people. The average pensioner's income is less than £100 per week—it is actually £98 per week, but four fifths of elderly people receive substantially less than that. They are therefore hit by charges for eye tests. We know that the cost of the elderly to the Health Service is substantially more than the cost of those who are not of pensionable age. We also know that 78 per cent. of elderly people between the ages of 78 and 85 suffer from severe eye conditions, yet it is precisely that category of vulnerable people that the Government are refusing to assist. That is deplorable.
There is no doubt in my mind—if they were honest, there would be no doubt in the minds of Conservative Members either—that substantially fewer people are now attending for eye tests than was the case before 1 April 1989. We all know that evidence from our constituencies. There is also the anecdotal evidence that we hear when speaking to our friends, colleagues and families. If the Government are seeking to rely on one set of statistics to justify their position, and if they refuse to accept any statistics that suggest an opposite point of view, they are a blinkered Government who are refusing to look at all the evidence.
The Secretary of State is a lawyer and, as such, he must look at both sides of the argument. However, he refuses to do so because the evidence does not fit the Government's position. The right hon. and learned Gentleman refuses to accept that anybody who can produce statistics to support a contrary point of view can have a valid argument. In those circumstances, I believe that the survey that the Government have produced is fundamentally flawed. The Government must look at the hard evidence that is produced by the practitioners, rather than relying on people's memories.
I shall conclude, as other hon. Members wish to speak. It is short sighted of the Government to dispense with free eye tests because, as we have heard in many valuable speeches, eye tests can detect other conditions. Ensuring that people have free eye tests actually saves money. Therefore, even if the Government are not prepared tonight to introduce free eye tests for everybody, I urge them to ensure that pensioners are entitled to free eye tests from this day forward.

Mr. Keith Vaz: What an extraordinary speech we have heard from the hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Maples). Despite the fact that he sits on the Conservative side, I always considered him to be a reasonable person. How extraordinary that he should tell us that he received no representations whatever from his

constituents protesting against the imposition of charges for eye tests. I advise him to keep his speech well hidden from his constituents in Lewisham, West.
Even before charges were introduced, some constituents of mine in Leicester felt that charges would have a detrimental effect on their health. On 31 October 1988 a group of pensioners went to Downing street and presented the Prime Minister with a gift. It was an unusual gift—a large pair of wooden spectacles and a large tooth. I do not know whether either of the items fitted the Prime Minister, but they were intended as a symbol of the effect that charges would have on people in my constituency. My constituents predicted over one and a half years ago that fewer people would have eye tests, and that is exactly what has happened.
Conservative Members are keen to give us facts and figures about the amount of money that has been spent on the Health Service. I agree entirely with what the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Dame J. Knight) said in her eloquent speech. I, too, believe that the facts are clear. She gave us facts on the national position and spoke of a 30 per cent. reduction in the number of eye tests. The figure for Leicestershire is lower but just as stark. According to the Leicestershire local optical committee, there has been a 25 per cent. reduction in the number of eye tests carried out on people in the county of Leicestershire. Hundreds of thousands of people—the hon. Lady said millions—nationally have serious eye disorders which will go undetected as a result of the introduction of charges for eye tests.
Contrary to what we were told by Conservative Members, people in my constituency were angry at the introduction of charges for eye tests. There was huge opposition to it. One person who worked hard campaigning against the charges in my constituency was Mr. Edwards who lives at 67 Marston road, Leicester. He was an optician. Shortly after the charges were introduced it was discovered that he had cancer and that it was terminal. Despite his illness, he campaigned vigorously in Leicester against the charges.
Mr. Edwards presented me with a petition signed by 105 people who opposed the scheme. That was all the names that he had time to collect in the limited time available before he died. I presented that petition to Parliament and shortly afterwards Mr. Edwards went into hospital and died there. I hope that that petition was a suitable memorial to the work that he did on behalf of local people to ensure that the voice of local people was raised against charges for eye tests.
Retinitis pigmentosa is an eye disease which affects a fair number of people in Britain. I have been told that one person in every 4,000 has the potential of developing the disease. A Leicester local councillor, Mary Draycott, members of whose family suffer from the disease, brought to my attention the fact that those who suffer from the disease are not exempt from charges for eye tests. Pressure on local doctors has increased greatly since the introduction of charges for eye tests simply because in the past relatives of those who suffer from retinitis pigmentosa were entitled to a free test. They can no longer have a free test. First, they must go to their general practitioner, who must refer them to a hospital doctor, who, in turn, must refer them to an optician for a free eye test. I wrote to a Minister—not the Minister who is at the Dispatch Box but


a previous Minister—about that matter urging her to initiate a scheme to exempt such people from paying for eye tests. Unfortunately, her response was negative.
I received a letter from a Mr. Clinton Smith who is the honorary secretary of the Leicestershire local optical committee. He wrote to me on 11 April 1989. In opposing the charges introduced by the regulations, he contrasted the view expressed by the Government about the tests with the way in which people operate according to the family doctor service. He said:
It is like suggesting that people can accurately decide for themselves what treatment they need from a family doctor and, although the doctor is trained and able to assist with the best possible advice in their interest, they are encouraged for commercial reasons to risk their health and happiness, and possibly their life, by demanding only an inferior part of the service should be given.
That is what we are discussing today. An inferior service is being provided because of the introduction of charges for eye tests.
Opposition Members are right to draw attention to the whole range of cuts in the National Health Service. One must see charges for eye tests in the context of the cuts affecting our local health services. The hon. Member for Edgbaston wanted to know where it would all end. I can tell her. It will end in the same way as it has ended in America—in a privatised Health Service. I visited America recently and I know that other hon. Members from both sides of the House have done so, too. When I was there it cost £25 to see a doctor. That is exactly what is intended by introducing charges for eye tests. We shall have a more and more privatised Health Service which we regarded as free at the points of entry and of need.
In my constituency and across the county of Leicestershire cuts have bitten into the local Health Service. Hon. Members from both sides of the House recently had a meeting with the Secretary of State about charges for tests and cuts in the Health Service. It was like communicating with a brick wall. If any hon. Members were thinking of seeing the Health Secretary to lobby on behalf of their health authorities, they should not bother simply because the Secretary of State is not interested in providing any assistance either to Labour or Conservative Members.
I shall finish by quoting from a letter that I received on the day of the Third Reading of the Health and Medicines Bill on 1 November 1988. A student came all the way from Leicester and handed me a letter which was as relevant now as it was then. She urged me to vote against the imposition of charges for tests. She said:
You may be able to eat with false teeth, walk with false legs but you cannot see with a false eye.
That is what we are saying to the Government. We urge them to put away their false eyes and consider the position in a positive and constructive way. We hear a great deal these days about reviewing the poll tax because of enormous opposition to it. I advise Conservative Members that now is the time to review charges for eye tests and abolish them.

Mr. Tim Devlin: I have an obvious interest to declare in that I have worn spectacles since I was 13. Since then, I have seen the eye test develop from a relatively unsophisticated process to the detailed test that is provided now. The last time that I went to the optician to have my eyes tested—last year—it took about 40

minutes to go through all the electronic and other tests, including blowing air into the eye to detect glaucoma. When one visits the optician, as I do every year, one is always faced with a charge.
I remember that when eye tests were free the cost of spectacles was amazing. At the age of 19 I paid about £70 for a pair of spectacles. When I went to buy spectacles last year the cost for certain pairs was as high as £200 or £300. However, since the introduction of greater competition in the supply of spectacles brought about by the Government, it has become possible for people to buy spectacles for as little as £25. Taken with the cost of the test, which is only £10 or £12—a reasonable charge for 40 minutes' work—the total charge is reasonable. It is certainly within the reach of many people in Britain to have their eyes tested once a year or once every two years.
When the reforms were first suggested last year I was one of the most sceptical Conservative Members. I went to see the Minister privately to discuss whether they were necessary. I assure the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) that I for one have no plans for the privatisation of the Health Service. I can tell the rest of the House that many Conservative Members would fight to the death rather than see that happen. Many, if not all, of us recognise the great value of the NHS. It will long remain so.
I looked up the history of the NHS charges to see what the precedents were for this form of charge and found that they were first introduced by the Labour Government who set up the NHS. I looked further and found that when the then right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale, Mr. Bevan, was Minister for Health, he said that charges in the National Health Service were "not a tax" on the Health Service, but "a readjustment within it". This is just another series of readjustments which were first brought about by the Labour Government.
Last week I returned from the Soviet Union. In that socialist Nirvana, which many Labour Members undoubtedly aspire to establish here, there are Health Service charges for a whole range of items, such as medicines, prescriptions and eye tests.
After careful consideration, I believe that there is much to be said for what the Government are doing. They are releasing a great deal of money for investment elsewhere in the service and I know that the Minister is monitoring the matter all the time.

The Minister for Health (Mrs. Virginia Bottomley): We have had a brief and, at times, heated debate on a subject which is of great concern and importance to many.
Frankly, Labour Members cannot have it both ways. Many whinged and groaned about the supposed demise of optical services, questioned our commitment to going ahead with the survey and pressed us for the results. We have undertaken an independent survey and made the results available in full. There is no conspiracy or concealment. The facts speak for themselves. Once again, the doom and gloom mongers have been seen in their true colours. The growth of the uptake of sight tests that took place through the 1980s is continuing.
At a time of rising prosperity—after all, the average family has seen an increase in living standards of 34 per cent. over the past 10 years—those who can do so should pay for their sight test. All will agree that the vulnerable,


the frail and the needy should have free sight tests. That is why children, students, people on low incomes, the blind, the partially sighted, diabetics and those with glaucoma and their older relatives are eligible for free tests.
Reference has been made to several surveys produced recently, each showing a fall in sight test demand since the introduction of charges. The plain fact is that most surveys have been commissioned either directly or indirectly by the profession or those with a special interest. There is no doubt that extensive pre-publicity about charges encouraged many people to bring forward their appointments to avoid the new arrangements. Indeed, my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State mentioned that some opticians even stayed open until midnight to beat the April 1989 deadline.
We estimate that in the 15 months between 1987 and April 1989 about 1·8 million more sight tests were carried out over and above what would normally have been expected. That is a revised figure of an earlier estimate and relates to all of Great Britain. It takes account of the large number of sight tests conducted before 1 April 1989, but which were paid for later.
Hon. Members will be aware that during the passage of the Health and Medicines Bill the Government undertook to monitor the effects of the new system. We have met that undertaking in full. We commissioned the independent market research company, National Opinion Poll, to survey the number of NHS and private sight tests carried out in the first quarter of 1990. As my right hon. and learned Friend made clear, we have acted swiftly to make that information available to the House today.
I want to make it clear, however, that we have in no way sought to conceal the fact that NOP, in undertaking the survey, made a minor error. It altered the wording in the later weeks of the survey. That does not affect the number of tests undertaken, but we are concerned that it affects the interpretation given about whether or not the test was private or on the NHS. This is spelt out fully in the documents without any attempt at concealment. Indeed, NOP takes full responsibility for that error.
The NOP report concludes that an estimated 4·5 million adults—a total of 5 million people if children are included—received a sight test in the first three months of 1990. That compares with 4.4 million in the same quarter of 1989.
As I have made clear, there is no disagreement that the proposed changes resulted in a dramatic increase in the number of those seeking tests. That is why to establish an underlying pattern we need to look at the 1987 figures. In assessing the report we projected forward the expected uptake on the basis of the upward trend established during the decade. If consumers are seeking eye tests at the same rate as that established trend, we would now expect 3·5 million to have come forward in the first quarter of 1990.
We recognise and, again, make it clear in the comments on the report that surveys of this kind encourage over-estimation by the interviewee. Our independent survey, even when generous allowance is made for possible over-reporting, suggests that there were an estimated 4·1 million sight tests in the first quarter of 1990–600,000 more than the trends would reasonably suggest. Even if we assumed a 50 per cent. rate of over-reporting, there would be more tests that in 1987. Therefore, the survey provides

firm evidence, which is endorsed by many of the reports available in the optical press, that the market is again on the upturn.
The hon. Members for Livingston (Mr. Cook) and for Ross, Cromarty and Skye (Mr. Kennedy) referred to the Economists Advisory Group. We have never said that our survey is the only one to be believed. Indeed, paragraph 8 of our report suggests that the true figure may be somewhere between the NOP figure and that in the most recent EAG reports.
My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Dame J. Knight), who is a champion of this subject and who is well known and respected in this House, made several important points. Her comment, and that of the hon. Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon), that patients are being referred to hospitals to obtain an eye test has not been borne out in evidence. I cannot believe that practitioners would follow such a course of action.

Mr. Dalyell: Will the Minister give way?

Mrs. Bottomley: I am afraid that I have little time.

Mr. Dalyell: rose

Mrs. Bottomley: Pensioners have never been automatically exempted from optical charges on the grounds of age rather than income.
We heard excellent contributions from my hon. Friends the Members for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown), for Lewisham, West (Mr. Maples) and for Stockton, South (Mr. Devlin). We are confident that eyesight tests are on a stable course. We take seriously the importance of providing a Health Service with a proper emphasis on primary health care and on eye tests. Only recently we made possible domiciliary visits so that pensioners who cannot leave their homes can now receive an NHS sight test at home. That started on 1 June. It is a further recognition of our desire to target resources on those who are vulnerable and to make sure that they can benefit from a test.
Similarly, in April this year when the Government increased the money spent on the value of optical vouchers, we targeted those in greatest need. We redefined voucher band A so that more patients would fall into the higher group and receive more help.
Many hon. Members have spoken about the importance of prevention, and the need for people to understand that their eyes must be cared for and protected. Hon. Members will be aware that, with the new GP contracts, prevention and health promotion are fundamental concepts. Those aged over 75 will receive regular visits and health checks, and sensory perceptions will be part of that assessment: vision will of course be checked. The Government intend to collaborate with GPs to ensure that they have all the relevant information to ensure that their patients receive the care that they need.
I hope that the Government have laid to rest the myths about the take-up of eye tests. We are at the beginning of a new campaign to draw to people's attention the importance of looking after their eyes, and we hope to put the disagreements of the past behind us and work with the profession on a further campaign in the autumn.
An eye test costs less than an MOT, about the same as a haircut—or perhaps two if one shops around—and about the same as reading The Sun or The Daily Mirror one day a week for a year. Free NHS sight tests are


available to one in three of the population. We are confident that our policies of providing health care for those who need it, and ensuring that we have a preventive Health Service, are well and truly vindicated. I urge the House to reject the motion.

Mr. Alun Michael: I am saddened by the cheap and dismissive way in which the Minister ended her remarks. Occasionally, when debating the Government's health policies, we succeed in detecting some twisted logic or some vestige of reasoning. However, today's debate has confirmed yet again that there is no logic or sense—or any redeeming feature—in the imposition of eye-test charges. As my hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) made clear at the beginning of the debate, there is overwhelming evidence that the Government's policy has proved every bit as devastating as we predicted in April 1989.
Today the Secretary of State attempted to bluff his way out of another disaster. His defence was based on a breathtaking dependence on a single opinion poll; and, by definition, an opinion poll reflects opinions rather than facts. His figures depend on retrospective analysis—which is not an accurate or a dependable method of dealing with this type of question—and on gratuitous insults aimed at an entire profession and at people who have genuinely tried to get at the truth. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Dame J. Knight) eloquently blasted him out of the water on that point.
The Secretary of State's figures fly in the face of all other available evidence. They were produced in a press release today in a desperate attempt to minimise the effect of this debate. He mentioned them reluctantly at the tail end of his speech, only after I challenged him to do so; they are no substitute for the proper figures and objective research that he and his colleagues have refused to produce over the past 15 months.
The Minister for Health added nothing except fine sentiments, which are not reflected in the actions of the Government and depend on the same flawed source. However, she contradicted the Secretary of State by acknowledging the validity of other evidence. She tried to re-announce a development implemented on 1 June.
The case is simple. Many people have been deterred by the charges. People are suffering, and some will go blind through serious eye conditions remaining undetected. Businesses are having to close because of the downturn in tests. Even those who are entitled to free tests are being deterred by the system that the Government have introduced.
This is not, as some Conservative Members try to suggest, a peripheral service for which a charge is appropriate: others, such as the hon. Member for Edgbaston, understand that. However, those who took and did not critically examine the brief from Conservative central office clearly do not understand. In today's debate, and over recent months, the ministerial response has been convoluted and the Government have tried to spread doubt and confusion. They have tried to say that we do not know what is happening. We need only read the blocking answers of the Minister for Health during recent months to recognise her single-minded determination not to know what is going on.
The Minister's colleague in another place, Baroness Hooper, was equally unhelpful, but rather more confident. When she was asked on 2 May about people entitled to free eye tests, she stated categorically:
There is no change in the uptake of eye tests in that proportion of the population."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 2 May 1990; Vol. 518, c. 1039.]
Funnily enough, she did not have the benefit of the information that the Minister is re-using today. She is wrong.
The Minister has managed to cast a cloak of darkness and opinion over the English figures, but the figures in Wales were given to me in a parliamentary reply on 8 May. In the six months from 1 April 1989, the numbers almost halved, from 330,000 to 170,000—a truly devastating drop. The Welsh Health Minister tried to say that it might be due to more people's taking private tests, but that is not true: the House has had the facts. An independent survey by the Federation of Ophthalmic and Dispensing Opticians shows a drop of 36 per cent. The other figures referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Livingston show the extent of the downturn across the country. Against that, the Government's own investigations offer no independent or substantial evidence for their case.
The Government say that there was bound to be a drop in the first couple of months after the charges were brought in. In April 1989, the Secretary of State for Scotland tried to suggest that a downturn after 1 April could be explained by people's success in rushing to beat the deadline. Apart from the curious logic of that, if charges will not deter, why should the lack of a charge and the imminence of an imposition cause an upturn? The history of events show that he was wrong. An increase of some 6·3 per cent. in the number of tests before 1 April hardly accounts for the drop of 36 per cent. recorded independently by the FODO, and certainly does nothing to balance the 49 per cent. drop in free tests reported by the Welsh Office.
The fact is that fewer people are having tests. Most serious of all is the evidence from Michael Bateman, the chairman of the FODO, who said:
Since the introduction of the charges there has been an overall drop in the number of people going for eye checks, even amongst those who are still entitled to a free sight test under the NHS such as those on low incomes, diabetics, and relatives of glaucoma sufferers whose own sight could be at risk.
The Government's third attempt to confuse us is the suggestion that the figures produced by optometrists arid independent sources may be inaccurate. There is overwhelming evidence that they are accurate. Opposition Members have asked questions—not dependent on those surveys—all round the country, and the evidence has mounted each time we have asked. Let us take referrals of new ophthalmology outpatients. The Welsh figures show a downturn late last year—just when one would expect reduced detection to follow the reduction in the number of eye tests—before the major increase in serious cases of which we are now hearing. In Pembrokeshire, for instance, there was a drop from 424 to 296.
The hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett)—who intervened briefly at the beginning of the debate, although he is not here now—may like to know that Mr. Nick Ainger, who will join us on the Labour Benches after the next general election, rang me last night to tell me the views of opticians in his area. One optician told of an elderly lady who went to see him yesterday. She had not had an eye test since 1976; she was blind in one eye and


losing sight in another. She said that she had been reluctant to come in because of the cost of spectacles, as she is not on income supplement. How many like her have still not reached the point of desperation when they cast aside their financial worries and take a test?
That optician reported a downturn of nearly 25 per cent. since last April. He believes that the Government should give free eye tests to all retired people now. Another optician in Pembroke dock says that pensioners who are not on income support are failing to turn up for appointments because of the charges. The same is true of unemployed people who are not on income support—perhaps because a member of the family is working—but whose family financial problems are nevertheless acute.
The Secretary of State claimed earlier that we still pay for one third of the population. He is wrong: one third may be eligible, but they may also be deterred. In Holyhead, near where I was born, an optician confirmed yesterday that he has experienced a downturn of 40 per cent. An independent sample undertaken by HTV Wales showed a drop of 47·5 per cent. in Carmarthen and a drop of 39·8 per cent. in one of the most deprived areas of the country, the Cynon Valley. However, the problems are not limited to poorer areas: similar figures were produced by an independent survey by the Kensington, Chelsea and Westminster family practitioner committee.
After I had illustrated the situation in Wales I received a letter that graphically illustrates what charging means—it is not just about figures. An optician passed to me a letter that he had received from the father of a 19-year-old student who was not exempt from the eyesight charges. The optician told me that she therefore had to pay, which fortunately she could, but that others would be deterred. The letter reads:
Dear Sir,
On Thursday 22nd February at 12.30 pm my daughter had an appointment to see the optician to have her eyes tested. He noticed that there was something wrong at the back of her eye and told her to go to the doctor. This she did, and was admitted to hospital on the same day and was operated on a few days later for the removal of a brain tumour. I should like to thank the optician for his prompt action—he probably saved my daughter's life.
I am sure that we would all like to thank the professional opticians who detect such conditions. They deserve more respect than was shown to them by the Secretary of State today. I am told that such cases are far from unusual. Far better than thanks would be an announcement from the Minister that the dogmatic experiment of charging for eye tests has proved a disaster and that that dogmatic charging will be abandoned forthwith.
You, Mr. Speaker, will know the prayer:
Grant me the serenity to accept things I cannot change, the courage to change things I can, and the wisdom to know the difference.
The Government have the power to make the necessary change and the Prime Minister should have the wisdom to revert to the decision not to go ahead with the charges which she justified in a letter of 23 June 1980, saying that it was
in reponse to strong representations that such a charge, in a service which has a preventative function, would be wrong in principle and could deter patients from seeking professional advice

Those comments apply as strongly today as they did at any other time, but this time she and her Government have pressed ahead against all available advice and evidence. This time the charge has been brought in and that charge has now deterred—it will go on deterring. It remains wrong in principle and the Government should remove eye test charges now.

Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—

The House divided: Ayes 209, Noes 275.

Division No. 224]
[7.01 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Fatchett, Derek


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
Fearn, Ronald


Allen, Graham
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Alton, David
Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)


Anderson, Donald
Fisher, Mark


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Flannery, Martin


Armstrong, Hilary
Flynn, Paul


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Foot, Rt Hon Michael


Ashton, Joe
Foster, Derek


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Foulkes, George


Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)
Fraser, John


Barron, Kevin
Fyfe, Maria


Beckett, Margaret
Galbraith, Sam


Beggs, Roy
Galloway, George


Bell, Stuart
Garrett, John (Norwich South)


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
George, Bruce


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John


Bermingham, Gerald
Godman, Dr Norman A.


Bidwell, Sydney
Gordon, Mildred


Blair, Tony
Gould, Bryan


Boateng, Paul
Graham, Thomas


Boyes, Roland
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Bradley, Keith
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)
Grocott, Bruce


Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
Harman, Ms Harriet


Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)
Heal, Mrs Sylvia


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Henderson, Doug


Buckley, George J.
Hinchliffe, David


Caborn, Richard
Hoey, Ms Kate (Vauxhall)


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Home Robertson, John


Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)
Hood, Jimmy


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Canavan, Dennis
Howells, Geraint


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)


Cartwright, John
Hoyle, Doug


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Hughes, John (Coventry NE)


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Clay, Bob
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Clelland, David
Illsley, Eric


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Ingram, Adam


Cohen, Harry
Janner, Greville


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)


Corbett, Robin
Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)


Corbyn, Jeremy
Kennedy, Charles


Cousins, Jim
Kilfedder, James


Crowther, Stan
Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil


Cryer, Bob
Kirkwood, Archy


Cummings, John
Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Leadbitter, Ted


Cunningham, Dr John
Lestor, Joan (Eccles)


Dalyell, Tam
Lewis, Terry


Darling, Alistair
Litherland, Robert


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Livingstone, Ken


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)
Livsey, Richard


Dewar, Donald
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Dixon, Don
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Dobson, Frank
Loyden, Eddie


Doran, Frank
McAllion, John


Douglas, Dick
McAvoy, Thomas


Dover, Den
McCartney, Ian


Duffy, A. E. P.
Macdonald, Calum A.


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth
McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)


Eadie, Alexander
McKelvey, William


Evans, John (St Helens N)
McLeish, Henry


Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)
Maclennan, Robert






McNamara, Kevin
Rowlands, Ted


McWilliam, John
Ruddock, Joan


Madden, Max
Salmond, Alex


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Sedgemore, Brian


Marek, Dr John
Sheerman, Barry


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)
Short, Clare


Martlew, Eric
Sillars, Jim


Maxton, John
Skinner, Dennis


Meacher, Michael
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Meale, Alan
Smith, C. (Isl'ton &amp; F'bury)


Michael, Alun
Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)


Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


Molyneaux, Rt Hon James
Snape, Peter


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Spearing, Nigel


Morley, Elliot
Steinberg, Gerry


Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)
Stott, Roger


Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Straw, Jack


Mowlam, Marjorie
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Mullin, Chris
Trimble, David


Murphy, Paul
Turner, Dennis


Nellist, Dave
Vaz, Keith


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)


O'Brien, William
Wallace, James


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Wareing, Robert N.


Owen, Rt Hon Dr David
Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)


Patchett, Terry
Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)


Pendry, Tom
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


Pike, Peter L.
Wigley, Dafydd


Powell, Ray (Ogmore)
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


Primarolo, Dawn
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


Quin, Ms Joyce
Wilson, Brian


Radice, Giles
Winnick, David


Redmond, Martin
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn
Worthington, Tony


Reid, Dr John
Wray, Jimmy


Richardson, Jo



Robertson, George
Tellers for the Ayes:


Robinson, Geoffrey
Mr. Martyn Jones and Mrs. Llin Golding.


Rogers, Allan



Ross, William (Londonderry E)





NOES


Adley, Robert
Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)


Aitken, Jonathan
Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick


Alexander, Richard
Buck, Sir Antony


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Budgen, Nicholas


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Burns, Simon


Amess, David
Burt, Alistair


Amos, Alan
Butterfill, John


Arbuthnot, James
Carlisle, John, (Luton N)


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Carrington, Matthew


Ashby, David
Cash, William


Aspinwall, Jack
Channon, Rt Hon Paul


Atkins, Robert
Chapman, Sydney


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Chope, Christopher


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Clark, Hon Alan (Plym'th S'n)


Baldry, Tony
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)


Batiste, Spencer
Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)


Bellingham, Henry
Colvin, Michael


Bendall, Vivian
Conway, Derek


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Cope, Rt Hon John


Benyon, W.
Couchman, James


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Cran, James


Body, Sir Richard
Critchley, Julian


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Currie, Mrs Edwina


Boswell, Tim
Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)


Bottomley, Peter
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Devlin, Tim


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Dickens, Geoffrey


Bowis, John
Dicks, Terry


Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes
Dorrell, Stephen


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Dunn, Bob


Brazier, Julian
Dykes, Hugh


Bright, Graham
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Evennett, David





Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas
MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)


Fallon, Michael
Maclean, David


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael


Fishburn, John Dudley
McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick


Fookes, Dame Janet
Major, Rt Hon John


Forman, Nigel
Malins, Humfrey


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Mans, Keith


Forth, Eric
Maples, John


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Marlow, Tony


Fox, Sir Marcus
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Franks, Cecil
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)


Freeman, Roger
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


French, Douglas
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Gale, Roger
Mellor, David


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Miller, Sir Hal


Gill, Christopher
Mills, Iain


Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian
Miscampbell, Norman


Glyn, Dr Sir Alan
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Goodhart, Sir Philip
Mitchell, Sir David


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Monro, Sir Hector


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Gorst, John
Moore, Rt Hon John


Gow, Ian
Morris, M (N'hampton S)


Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)
Morrison, Sir Charles


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Moss, Malcolm


Gregory, Conal
Moynihan, Hon Colin


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Neale, Gerrard


Ground, Patrick
Nelson, Anthony


Hague, William
Neubert, Michael


Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Nicholls, Patrick


Hampson, Dr Keith
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Hanley, Jeremy
Norris, Steve


Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')
Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley


Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)
Oppenheim, Phillip


Harris, David
Page, Richard


Hawkins, Christopher
Paice, James


Hayward, Robert
Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Patnick, Irvine


Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)
Pawsey, James


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Porter, Barry (Wirral S)


Hind, Kenneth
Porter, David (Waveney)


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Portillo, Michael


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Price, Sir David


Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)
Renton, Rt Hon Tim


Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)
Riddick, Graham


Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas


Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)
Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)


Hunt, David (Wirral W)
Rossi, Sir Hugh


Hunter, Andrew
Rost, Peter


Irvine, Michael
Rowe, Andrew


Irving, Sir Charles
Rumbold, Mrs Angela


Jack, Michael
Ryder, Richard


Janman, Tim
Sackville, Hon Tom


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Sainsbury, Hon Tim


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Sayeed, Jonathan


Jones, Robert B (Herts W)
Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Shaw, David (Dover)


Key, Robert
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)
Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)


Kirkhope, Timothy
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Knapman, Roger
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Knowles, Michael
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Lamont, Rt Hon Norman
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Lang, Ian
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Lawrence, Ivan
Speller, Tony


Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel
Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)


Lee, John (Pendle)
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Squire, Robin


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Stanbrook, Ivor


Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Lightbown, David
Steen, Anthony


Lilley, Peter
Stern, Michael


Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)
Stevens, Lewis


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Luce, Rt Hon Richard
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Stewart, Rt Hon Ian (Herts N)






Stradling Thomas, Sir John
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Sumberg, David
Walden, George


Summerson, Hugo
Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)


Tapsell, Sir Peter
Waller, Gary


Taylor, Ian (Esher)
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Taylor, John M (Solihull)
Watts, John


Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)
Wells, Bowen


Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman
Wheeler, Sir John


Temple-Morris, Peter
Whitney, Ray


Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret
Widdecombe, Ann


Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)
Wiggin, Jerry


Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)
Wilshire, David


Thorne, Neil
Wolfson, Mark


Thornton, Malcolm
Wood, Timothy


Thurnham, Peter
Woodcock, Dr. Mike


Townend, John (Bridlington)
Yeo, Tim


Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Tracey, Richard
Younger, Rt Hon George


Tredinnick, David



Twinn, Dr Ian
Tellers for the Noes:


Vaughan, Sir Gerard
Mr. Alastair Goodlad and Mr. Tony Durant.


Viggers, Peter



Waddington, Rt Hon David

Question accordingly negatived.

Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 30 (Questions on amendments), and agreed to.

MR. SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House supports the Government in its view that those who can afford to pay for sight tests should do so and that the money which was previously spent by the National Health Service on free sight tests for those who could afford to pay is better spent in other ways in improving health care; believes that this will not lead to the nation's health or sight being put at risk nor deter those from seeking sight tests who need them; and fully supports the Government's policy that sight tests paid for by the National Health Service should continue to be available to those on low income, children and those most at risk of blindness from diabetes and glaucoma.

Welfare of Children

Miss Joan Lestor: I beg to move,
That this House deplores the damage to children resulting from eleven years of Conservative governments, whose pursuit of socially divisive policies has seriously undermined the domestic security and future prospects of millions of children; calls on the Government fully to acknowledge its responsibilities towards all children through a fundamental re-assessment of service provision to children by recognising the need for substantially increased levels of co-ordination at both national and local government level; further requires the Government to facilitate the national collation and interpretation of information about children through the establishment of information-gathering mechanisms and continued support for existing systems; and urges the Government to bring before this House a timetable for ratification of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, as a sign of its commitment to improving the welfare of children, both within the United Kingdom and elsewhere.

Mr. Speaker: I must announce to the House that I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.

Miss Lestor: In setting what I hope will be the scene of this debate on children, I should like the House to cast its mind back to 1975 when the Prime Minister said in a speech in New York:
Let our children grow tall, and some grow taller than others if they have it in them to do so. Opportunity means nothing, unless it includes the right to be unequal.
We little thought then that this "right" to inequality would be enshrined in law as a result of policy decisions taken by successive Conservative Governments in the past decade.
We have recently been subjected to many fine words, albeit dangerously oversimplifying the issues affecting children. I urge the House not to pay too much attention to what the Government say, but to look at what they have done, because there is a substantial, if predictable, gap between the myth of a caring Government and the reality experienced by many of our children.
The Tory party is fond of claiming to be the party of the family, yet it is the same party which, during a decade of government, has taken policy decisions after policy decisions which have divided families and not supported them. I shall give a few brief examples, starting with unemployment. The Conservative Government deliberately engineered appallingly high unemployment, thus throwing millions into dependency on state benefits. A generation of Thatcher's children have gone from childhood to adulthood without experience of their parents being in work and without any job prospects of their own.
Do hon. Members remember the saying, "On your bike"? What was that advice meant to achieve? It meant a parent, more often than not a father, being absent from home for long periods actively seeking work in other parts of the United Kingdom—a stranger to his children and subjecting his marriage to intolerable strains.
When do the Government intend to sort out the tangible contradictions in their approach to families and members of those families? There is an increasing tendency in Government circles to browbeat some members of the family to stay put at all costs. For example, 16 to 18-year-olds are supposed to stay with their families or face unacceptable levels of financial hardship, making it virtually impossible for them to lead an independent life at a decent level. If their parents are unemployed, they can no


longer, thanks to Government action, claim these young people as dependants. If such young people are not on a youth training scheme, they will not get any benefit.
Younger children running away from home are dubbed dreamers who are chasing the bright city lights, but many of them are running away from shocking domestic pressure, overcrowding, violence, sexual abuse and other problems. Many of these children are throwaways, not runaways. Only recently the Prime Minister expressed horror at the idea that we might be in danger of rearing a generation of creche children. She told us that women with young children should stay at home and raise their family. It would be nice if most women had that choice. The Prime Minister had that choice and she took it.
However, child benefit has been frozen since 1987, and there were hints in the press over the weekend that it is likely to remain at that level. In many areas, including Conservative-controlled authorities, mothers are finding that child benefit, their only directly paid benefit, barely pays their monthly poll tax bill.
Ministers other than the Prime Minister have expended much energy and effort trying to persuade women to return to work to meet the needs of industry. The Government should get together to decide what they want. If women are to be encouraged to return to work, I shall support that, as someone who was a working mother when the children were young.
It is wrong for us to rely on workplace nurseries for child care. Child care needs to be child centred, and it should take into account the needs of children. If we rely on child care for working mothers, what will happen when the country decides that it no longer needs those mothers in the work force, as it has done in the past? If that happens, child care will disappear, as it did at the end of the second world war. Children are caught in the middle of Government confusion. Have they benefited from the decade of supposedly unprecedented prosperity or has the economic miracle passed them by?
The Prime Minister has said that the Victorian era had much to commend it. We can see what it was like, for some of it has returned with a vengeance. For a minority of our children there are slum dwellings, child working and an increase in social inequalities. The Children's Society says that 98,000 children cease to sleep at home on any one night. Of course, many of these children turn up unharmed, but many do not. Government information—what happened to the children who ran away from home and why they did so—is scant. That is not my view alone. Since taking on the portfolio of Labour's spokesperson for children—it is not a soft option as one or two members of the press have suggested—I have had intensive consultations with voluntary organisations, professional bodies and individuals who are actively involved in caring for children. The same picture emerges. There is a clear and increasing tendency for the Government to rely on the voluntary sector to pick up the pieces, the damaged children for whom they and society—I know that "society" is not the Prime Minister's favourite word—are responsible. Any Government who are serious about taking on that responsibility must begin with a thorough understanding of the problem, and that means national information gathering.
The House may find it significant that many of the statistics that I shall use have come from non-Government sources. I pay tribute to the Children's Society, the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, the Save

the Children Fund, the National Children's Home, the National Children's Bureau, Barnardos, the Child Poverty Action Group, the Health Visitors Association and many other organisations for filling the vital information gap.

Mr. Ian Taylor: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Miss Lestor: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman, but I do not intend to give way for long. We rarely debate these issues and I do not have much time.

Mr. Taylor: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way. She has mentioned some eminent and worthy charities, all of which do an excellent job. That job, even by their own admission, has been helped by the Government's generous tax arrangements for charitable giving. It is the charities which deal with the problem and which know best how to deal with it, and we fully support them.

Miss Lestor: When I have asked Ministers for information and statistics on missing children, children who are sleeping out and truancy, I have been told that the Government do not collect such statistics or I have been referred to one of the agencies. Surely hon. Members have the right to receive Government information about what is going on.
I shall draw attention to a striking exception to the rule which I have just enunciated. There is a piece of Government-funded research that is proving indispensable for those who are genuinely concerned about the health and welfare of the younger generation. I refer to the long-term study of the health of primary schoolchildren, which was set up after the Prime Minister, in a previous guise, abolished free school milk. The nationwide study of 10,000 children is being carried out by St. Thomas's hospital within the medical sector. It has produced valuable information on children's height, weight and general health. I am advised that, although it is regarded worldwide as a model of its kind, there is the threat of withdrawal of funding next April, despite the fact that the study is revealing what has happened to underprivileged groups in society. It seems that the trend in the 1970s towards more equal birth rates across the social spectrum is now, after 10 years of Conservative government, in reverse. Surely that could not be a cause for the Department of Health to get cold feet. I ask for an assurance from the Minister for Health that the rumour to which I have referred has no foundation and that the research will continue.
I have no doubt that the Minister will wish to assure the House also that the Government are doing all that they can to achieve higher welfare standards for our children. I am sure that the hon. Lady will say that the Government have spent X million pounds on this and a further Y million pounds on that, but their policy is obviously not working.
The Child Poverty Action Group demonstrated recently that millions of people, including children, are still getting a poor deal from the rich society and that the famous trickle-down theory of economic growth working over the long term is irrelevant to the needs of children now. Our children cannot wait.
When we get a significant and potentially powerful tool of legislation that can be used to help children who are in need, such as the Children Act 1989—I am pleased that the Government refer to the Act in their amendment—there


are difficulties when it comes to implementation. It was said that the Act would lead to an improvement in court hearings, but we did not get family courts, although we fought hard to secure them. The need for such courts was agreed by many hon. Members on both sides of the House. The Act is in danger of being sabotaged by the Government's refusal to provide adequate extra resources to help local authorities to implement it. According to a survey conducted by the Association of Metropolitan Authorities, local government will have to find as much as £150 million a year to implement the Act. What is the use of raising hopes and expectations as a result of our knowledge of the needs of children—that knowledge forced the Government to introduce the Act—if we are not to give local authorities the money to implement it? In these days of poll tax and capped councils, where is local government to find the necessary finance to put much-needed legislation into practice? The local authority within my constituency tells me that it will cost it £450,000 a year to implement the Act. Will the authority be capped if it increases the poll tax to pay for implementation? That is what the Government are saying. High spending are dirty words only if the money is squandered. If money is well spent on services that are needed, and the Children Act has shown a need, it becomes indispensable.
It is especially relevant that we are debating the welfare of children during National Sleep-out Week, which is designed to highlight the plight of people, including many young people and children, who are forced to sleep rough on the streets or in bus shelters, alleyways or cardboard boxes. The plight of homeless young people distresses us all. It is a visible sign of our failure to deal with a range of social and domestic problems that give many youngsters no choice but to leave home or local authority care. Many of these youngsters—a few as young as nine or 10 years—find temporary shelter courtesy of the voluntary organisations. The Centrepoint refuge found a doubling of the number of young people sleeping rough between 1987 and 1989 and suggests that the main cause is the absence of cheap accommodation and the young people's unwillingness, often because of fear, to return to the place from which they came. Most sinister is the finding of a group that is campaigning for the end of the Vagrancy Act 1824. It draws attention to an increase of more than 230 per cent. in arrests under the Act of young people who are sleeping on the streets.
That legislation was passed in 1824 to "deal with" veterans of the Napoleonic wars who exposed their wounds in order to solicit money from passers-by. One hundred and sixty-six years later it is used to criminalise young homeless people. Why? Under that Act, sleeping out is a crime, as is asking the public for money. Under more recent Government legislation, 16 to 18-year-olds not living at home or on YTS programmes are not eligible for state financial support. What kind of Government is it who force youngsters to beg in order to survive, make them criminals when they do so, and further criminalise them when they have to sleep rough for lack of money?
A disproportionate number of these young people have run away from care; some agencies suggest that the figure is as high as 40 per cent. We must examine where and why our care system is failing them. A similarly high proportion have told voluntary workers that they were

subjected to physical or sexual abuse at home, in school or in care, and cannot go home. I take this opportunity to express my concern about one particular aspect of child protection. I refer to the vetting of adults applying for jobs that will bring them into close contact with children. We have all been appalled by cases of children who were placed in care as a refuge from something that occurred in their background and who have then been further abused while in that care.
The Association of Metropolitan Authorities' recent survey on vetting procedures makes alarming reading. It reports delays ranging from three weeks to 10 weeks in some areas. At least one hon. Member has publicly criticised the police for unnecessary and bureaucratic delay, but the picture is not that simple. That police are at full stretch, trying to cope with the greatly increased demand on vetting services. That demand has arisen, rightly, from heightened awareness of the need to extend the protection of children.
In 1987–88, almost half a million inquiries were processed in response to requests from local authority departments, social service departments, probation services, and health authorities. Fewer than 400 requests were received from the Department of Education and Science on behalf of independent schools. Without a Government commitment to provide additional resources, the police will either have to resign themselves to an ever-lengthening backlog of inquiries or to providing a restricted and less than thorough service.
All that is at a time when the Government are encouraging education authorities—especially those in inner city areas—to advertise abroad for qualified teachers to plug staffing gaps. Some European countries provide their nationals with a certificate of good conduct, but not all. Can the Minister for Health confirm, by making inquiries among her colleagues, that the Department of Education and Science provides no guidelines to local education authorities as to the countries in which they should advertise for teaching staff, bearing in mind the important point that reciprocal arrangements exist in some? Do the Government have any plans for extending international co-operation between police forces after 1992, further to safeguard children from potential harm when they are in educational or caring establishments, given that there will be more open access to people from abroad to work in them?
In 1988–89, 2 million children were living in families on income support. Given the acknowledged inadequacies of state benefits, there can be no doubt that those children were, and still are, living in poverty. The children in single-parent families are likely to be worse off. Today, about 1 million lone parents, 90 per cent. of them women, are bringing up 1·6 million children—or 13 per cent. of all the children in the United Kingdom. About 65 per cent. of lone parents are dependent on income support—double the number of a decade ago. Most single parents are discouraged from working for reasons that include the high cost of child care, compelling them to seek a wage far higher than that which they are likely to obtain. They also risk the loss or reduction of housing benefits, the loss of free school meals, and of other concessions that they have when claiming income support. The low level of child benefit is another factor. The children of families living on benefits are at risk of poverty, and the link between poverty and reception into care is very strong.
The Government's most recent figures show that £9 million annually is being spent on preventive work, in trying to keep families together. I approve of that work, but £434 million was spent on fostering and residential care. Something is radically wrong.
A large number of children in this country are on at-risk registers. Latest figures for the London area show that between 400 and 600 children on at-risk registers have no social worker attached to them because there are insufficient staff to do that work. That underclass of child is not only poor but likely to be malnourished. We pay insufficient attention to food poverty. By and large, it is as true today as it was a century ago that a child's health and diet are dependent on its parents' economic status—with the notable exception of some middle-class parents who force-feed beefburgers to their children.
It is no use suggesting that families can work their way out of poverty and that they have only to get jobs for all to be well. Although some new jobs are being created, many of them are very low paid. People are now earning their poverty—receiving less in pay than the value of the supplementary benefits for which they would be eligible if unemployed. The Maternity Alliance report on poverty and pregnancy examined the cost of an adequate diet for expectant mothers. It found that many pregnant women faced serious difficulties in affording the kind of diet recommended by hospitals. The diet was costed at £15·88 per week in 1988—more than one quarter of income support for an unemployed couple expecting their first baby, and more than half the income support for a single woman aged 24 expecting her first baby. What was the use of the 1977 DHSS report that said:
An inadequate diet before and during pregnancy may impair the growth of the baby and put at risk the health of both mother and child"?
In 1990, it is still women on low incomes, but especially unsupported mothers, whose babies face the greatest risk of being born underweight or of an early death.

Mr. James Paice: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Miss Lestor: I did not intend to give way again. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will be called.
Our debates on the Broadcasting Bill have featured some striking omissions in respect of children, including the advertising of sweets, food and drinks on children's television. Recently, I accompanied a delegation to the IBA on behalf of dentists and nutritionists to protest at the amount of advertising of sugar-rich food and sweets. According to one food magazine, more than half of all advertisements on children's television encouraged an unhealthy and mainly sugary diet. Bearing in mind the large number of hours that children spend watching television, the IBA's code of practice is clearly failing to protect them. It is time the Government got tough and brought Britain into line with other European countries. Our guidelines are among the weakest in Europe. No encouragement is given to advertisers to relate proper teeth-cleaning habits or to promote the eating of decent foods. The health of our children should take precedence over commercial interests.
The same argument applies to child road safety and to the important hold that the road lobby seems to have over the present Government. More than 120 children are killed or injured on our roads each day. Road accidents are the leading cause of death among school-age children. We

have the second worst record of child road deaths in Europe. We need to know more about those accidents if we are to prevent further loss of life or injury.
Is poor housing, with inadequate play space, to blame? The National Playing Fields Association expressed concern last year at the ever-increasing commercial exploitation of land, insensitive planning and lack of awareness combining to threaten outdoor recreational space. The association says in its 1989 report:
Too many playing fields and play grounds are deteriorating or disappearing altogether
and that far too many major housing developments are created with inadequate green space, especially for children to play in. Are we taking any notice of such observations? Three fifths of all road accidents involving pre-school children occurred in the street less than 100 yards from the home. Do we plan for children when building new road systems? Eighty-five per cent, of casualties occur in built-up areas.

Mr. David Wilshire: Eighty-five per cent. of children live in built-up areas. What a stupid remark.

Miss Lestor: Over the past decade—[Interruption.] I do not know why Conservative Members find child deaths funny. I do not. I find them appalling. I agree with the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) that they have been making stupid remarks. I am glad to have the hon. Gentleman on my side. His hon. Friends have been making stupid remarks. Child deaths are not funny, and the fact that 85 per cent. of child deaths in roads occur in built-up areas needs to be studied.

Mr. Humfrey Malins: That is where they live.

Miss Lestor: Yes, I agree with the hon. Gentleman, that is where they live. If areas are built up to such an extent that children are killed, we should study the planning of such areas and decide to do something about it.
In the past decade we have seen increasing Government support for the arguments put forward by the pro-road lobby at the cost of young lives. The Secretary of State for Transport announced earlier this year that substantial sums would be allocated to new road-building programmes. What proportion of that is going towards road safety? I have submitted a written question on the matter and I am still waiting for an answer.
Children also need protection in the home. The impact of poverty on young lives can have a profound and damaging effect on children's life chances. We can now see evidence—although not yet Government evidence—of how children are being used to prop up the state. It is estimated that between 10,000 and 20,000 young people and children are carers of dependent adults. Many more will have taken on a substantial part of the responsibility for looking after brothers and sisters. Financial, practical and emotional help for such youngsters is grossly inadequate, and the Labour party is currently considering ways in which we can meet the needs of that special category of children.
We must reject the attitudes which lay behind the comment from one social services chairman that it was good training for a 10-year-old girl to get up three or for times in a night to help her disabled mother. Something is going wrong. Such children do an adult's work for no pay.
Many more children work illegally for low pay and as many as one in three children between the ages of 11 and


15 works outside school hours. It is estimated that 8 per cent. of them work illegally; they work too many hours. That is between 1 million and 2 million children.
Poverty and adult unemployment mean that all too frequently such children are the only breadwinner in the family, transforming at a stroke working for pocket money into an essential element of the family budget. The Anti Slavery Society, Defence for Children International and other organisations have carried out studies which show that many children work longer hours than adults, often doing two jobs, one before and one after school. Those are the children who are tired at school, frequently go absent for short periods of time and fail to reach expected educational standards. When are the Government going to implement the Employment of Children Act 1973?
I do not have time, bearing in mind what I told you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to go into many other matters. Truancy is on the increase both among younger and older children and how such children spend their time causes great concern to all agencies.
Last November the United Nations adopted a convention on the rights of the child. At its heart lies the recognition that each child is a valuable and unique individual. It stressed the need to balance the child's right to security, protection, education and nurture with its right to be listened to, responded to and respected. Seven months later we are still waiting for a timetable for its ratification by the House. Why are we waiting so long?
I was involved in some of the discussions on the convention on the rights of the child and I noticed that in this country people's thoughts usually flew to Third world children where extreme poverty and underdevelopment deny them security, education, proper nurturing and protection, where they are exploited and abused, and live and work in the streets, robbed of their childhood. Many die before they have a chance to live. However, this country is neither poor nor underdeveloped. We have no such excuse.

The Minister for Health (Mrs. Virginia Bottomley): I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
'welcomes the major programme of work in the child care and child protection field which the Government are overseeing and undertaking in co-operation with local government and the voluntary sector, backed up by the Children Act 1989, which will establish an improved court system for children and a new balance between public support of children within their families and action to protect children from abuse and neglect, and families from unwarranted intrusion by the state; and welcomes other initiatives such as the reformed system of social security which targets help more effectively on the least well off among families with children.'.
Children are the key to our future and the true wealth of our nation. They are our most sacred trust. The Government are committed to encouraging responsible attitudes towards the care and upbringing of children and to providing a framework for health, community, education and social services. Wherever possible, we want to enable families to provide for their children's welfare. When necessary, others need also to be able to assist or to intervene.
The Government undertake to safeguard and promote the welfare of children. This is an issue of profound

concern to all of us. We want to take forward thinking and action on children's issues. We already have a record of achievement. This debate provides a welcome opportunity to set out our far-reaching programme.
I have already had discussions with the hon. Member for Eccles (Miss Lestor) on a number of subjects, and I do not for one moment doubt her sincerity about the needs of children, but it is important that the Government should set a framework within which we can work with local authorities. Above all, children belong in families and in communities. We have to spread that sense of responsibility and awareness of children's needs throughout society. It is a source of regret, although scarcely surprise, that so often the hon. Lady should have sought to make rather petty party political capital out of a subject on which, frankly, there are many areas of broad agreement.
The way to provide for the financial side of the welfare of children, as for other vulnerable groups, is to establish a flourishing economy.
My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Social Security, who will wind up the debate, will be speaking in greater detail about some of the benefits that are available to families.
Few doubt the commitment of the Opposition to children, but we all have every reason to doubt their ability to deliver. Under the Government, over the past 10 years, families have seen major improvements in their living standards. There has been a 34 per cent. increase in the real value of take-home pay for a married man on average earnings with two children, compared with an increase of less than 1 per cent. under the last Labour Government.
This year nearly £10 billion is being spent on the whole range of benefits for the family. In real terms that is an increase of more than a quarter since 1979. Under the Labour party, financial support for the family was cut by nearly 10 per cent. in real terms in six miserable years.
The reforms of the social security system have rightly concentrated help on those most in need. This year £5·4 billion is going in social security payments to low-income families—the third year running when these families have seen real increases in income-related benefits.
Family credit, which was born out of the previous family income supplement, is a major initiative which was brought forward by my noble Friend Lord Joseph and is paid to the mothers in almost all cases. It is important in ensuring that working families do not lose out as they cross the threshold between unemployment and work and as they climb the income ladder. The average award is more than £27 a week and family credit now goes to more than 300,000 families—nearly half as many again as were helped under the old family income supplement. Twice as much help is being given now.

Mrs. Maria Fyfe: I wonder what the Minister would say to one of my constituents who, when she applied to the social fund for her expected baby's needs, was told that she could have money for a cot or a pram but not for both. Is that something which would have happened at any time before the Government came to power? I cannot remember anything like it—unless we look back to the years before 1945.

Mrs. Bottomley: Unlike the hon. Lady—or perhaps like her—I spent many years before entering this place working with precisely those families who were grappling with the


social security system. I worked for the Child Poverty Action Group, and I had the most enormous and overwhelming difficulty getting any kind of civilised or courteous handling for such families under the Labour Government. However, I would not seek to make any capital out of that.
In the provision of welfare services, difficult assessments have to be made. Low-income families can be confident that they have seen their benefits and incomes rise. The Opposition, as we have said time and time again, are not short of rhetoric but are devoid of the ability to turn that rhetoric into reality.
It is not my view, or that of the Government, that resources are the only issue. We also believe that children require the protection of legislation. It is a major tragedy of our society that still there are children in our country who are neglected and abused and whose needs are not being met. We take considerable pride in the Children Act 1989, which was the work of my predecessor, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Mellor). It has placed on the statute book an integrated legislative framework which balances the needs of the child, parents and local authorities. We are working closely with local authority associations and voluntary organisations to make sure that the necessary guidance and training is in place. It is the first attempt to establish a unified and consistent code of law covering the care and upbringing of children in both the private and the public sectors. This is but the first of a series of reforms of family law.
We have begun a review of the law on adoption. We are expecting proposals from the Law Commission to reform the law on divorce and domestic violence.

Mr. Derek Conway: My hon. Friend has extolled the progress that has been made under this Government which, examined by any rational person, can be seen to be great compared with the sanctimonious words that were uttered earlier this evening. However, will my hon. Friend verify that some of the progress that we have tried to make by means of legislation could come adrift if some Government agencies are not sure about the purpose of the legislation? I ask her to consider the fact that Customs and Excise is making life difficult for those who offer a fostering service to more than three children by insisting that they should register for VAT. The Inland Revenue has been helpful and sympathetic but Customs and Excise has not. That is an example of the Government's intentions not always being fulfilled by a Government agency that is not helping those who foster and who may subsequently adopt children in need.

Mrs. Bottomley: I congratulate my hon. Friend on his concern. If he will give me more details about those cases, I shall look into them.
I have referred to the important progress that we have made in trying to clarify and establish a legal framework that pays better regard to the needs of children. Those of us who have long deplored the needlessly destructive effects of the legal process on families welcome this progress towards an integrated structure of family law. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Eccles has had to leave the Chamber, since she stressed that point.
The Children Act sets new standards in child care. The welfare of the child is paramount and must underpin any decision that a court makes about the care and upbringing

of children. The Act specifically requires the court to consider the child's wishes and feelings, its physical and emotional needs, the likely effect of changed circumstances and whether the parents are capable of meeting the child's needs. The Act explicitly recognises that the child's welfare requires separate consideration from any rights or needs of the parents. We replace terms such as "parental rights and duties" with the concept of parental responsibility—a responsibility that persists through divorce, separation or care. It can be relinquished only if the child is adopted.
The new range of court orders concentrates the minds of parents on their continuing responsibility for the upbringing of the child in family proceedings. The hon. Member for Eccles did not refer to the responsibilities of parents. We recognise that there is a role for Government and local authorities and that often there is a central role for voluntary organisations, which have done so much to improve child care, but we believe strongly that parents, above all, have a responsibility and that legal processes should never inadvertently undermine their role.

Ms. Hilary Armstrong: I waited to intervene until the Minister had completed her remarks about the Children Act. I am disappointed that she has not responded to the request of my hon. Friend the Member for Eccles (Miss Lestor) to talk about resources. All those who are involved with the implementation of the Children Act are concerned about adequate resources being made available for the purpose. When the Bill was considered in Committee emphasis was placed on the fact that additional resources would be needed. Already there are huge backlogs over the registration of child minders, day nurseries and private facilities because social services departments have been unable to employ sufficient people to complete their registration. What do the Government intend to do about that?

Mrs. Bottomley: I have not remotely come to the end of my remarks on the Children Act. I shall certainly deal with the implementation process and with the specific point made by the hon. Member for Eccles. Each year we have discussions with local authority associations about the challenges that they face. The resource implications of the Children Act were recognised by the Government. During this year's public expenditure discussions with local authorities we are considering whether additional resources will be needed. Some of them were referred to by the hon. Member for Eccles, such as the resource implications of those leaving care. The hon. Lady has a great interest in the working of the Children Act and I recognise her concern.
I return to the question that unites my hon. Friends—the responsibility of parents. Too often, under present arrangements, court orders treat children as though they were possessions to be fought over, along with the car a nd the microwave. The Act makes it clear that the child's religious persuasion, racial origin—a matter of concern to the hon. Member for Eccles—and cultural life and linguistic background should be taken into account in decisions affecting the child. Once again, recognition of the child's needs is central.

Mr. Wilshire: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is truly amazing that in her 28-minute speech the hon. Member for Eccles (Miss Lestor) made no mention of the role of parents in the welfare of children, or of the role of parents in terms of accepting responsibility for their children? Is it


not much more practical and realistic to ask ourselves about the responsibility of parents instead of knocking the Government and offering no alternative policies?

Mrs. Bottomley: The role of parents is fundamental. I have made it clear on many occasions that their role is not properly recognised. I think that both sides agree about the duty of local authorities under the Children Act to safeguard the welfare of children within the family, wherever possible. All hon. Members agree that, ideally, local authorities should not intervene only in order to remove a child; they should safeguard the child's place within the family. That is one purpose of the legislation.
Lord Joseph referred to the cycle of deprivation. He has made a continual and valuable contribution to the debate on the role of the family. The title of his most recent work, "The Rewards of Parenthood", speaks for itself. The background against which a child grows up is fundamental. Children require stability, continuity and affection as much as they need food, shelter and education. Some parents require help to cope with their child's demands. Bringing up children is no easy task. Individual children and circumstances present different challenges to different parents. No other role calls for the range of talents and sustained commitment that parenthood requires.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: I draw the Minister's attention to a particular difficulty—what is going on in the Hong Kong camps. Britain has responsibility for that colony. I visited various camps last week under the auspices of the Hong Kong Government. I saw thousands of children in a camp holding 22,000 people on an eight-acre site. They were living in indescribable squalor behind metal bars and barbed wire. The psychologists and psychiatrists who visited the camp have reported that those children will be damaged for life. What do the Government intend to do about the conditions under which they live? Those children are being damaged. They are the responsibility of the British Government and it is all happening under the Union Jack. What are the Government going to do about it? I was besieged by people in those camps asking for a response from the British Government.

Mrs. Bottomley: Hon. Members will agree that it was wrong for me to give way to the hon. Gentleman. It is clear that the Government are deeply committed to resolving the situation in Hong Kong, but it is far from easy. The Opposition have naive aspirations with no possible mechanism for translating their pious hopes into policies and arrangements that can deliver the assistance that is required. I do not intend to give way any further.
Prevention of family breakdown is always better than cure. Volunteer or befriending schemes can help families to deal with difficulties, and a professional social worker or agency does not necessarily need to become involved. We particularly applaud the work of the home start consultancy, but others such as NEWPIN are being funded out of our £2 million under-fives initiative that is directed particularly towards assisting the voluntary sector. Similarly, the development of family centres in recent years has done much to promote informal

networks. I know that many hon. Members support a range of professional and voluntary organisations that play a crucial role.
The hon. Member for Eccles spoke about the needs of children leaving care. There is not doubt that leaving care without adequate support and proper arrangements can easily exacerbate a child's difficulties. A recent report has suggested that something like one third of the homeless youngsters on the streets of London were previously in care. The House will know that we are looking carefully at the problem of homelessness among young people. It is a complex, multi-faceted problem. It is not a question of vagrancy legislation or the particular arrangement of social security benefits. The Children Act placed a new duty on local authorities to advise, assist and befriend each child that they look after with a view to promoting his welfare when he leaves care. We fund a number of voluntary organisations to assist in that important work.
The number of women joining the work force is growing, and it is estimated that women will take up to 90 per cent. of the additional jobs that will be created between now and the end of the century. We firmly believe that parents should decide for themselves whether both parents or which parent should work when their children are young or still dependent.
A variety of day care services for pre-school and school-age children should be available so that parents may choose which best meets their children's needs. In the past 10 years there has been a rapid expansion in day care provision—a 90 per cent. increase in the number of children placed with child minders. In the debate about workplace nurseries I hope that none will overlook the important contribution made by child minders who can provide a continuity of care and stability that many other arrangements cannot. There has been a 75 per cent. increase in day nursery places, and all will welcome the recent concession from my right hon. Friend the Chancellor to assist with workplace nurseries.
There has been an 18 per cent. increase in playgroup places. Playgroups provide help and day experience for 400,000 children each year. It is the most popular and widely used system for providing activity during the day for pre-school children and has the unique characteristic of providing encouragement, support and collaborative experience for the parents about whom my hon. Friends feel so strongly. In Britain 86 per cent. of all three to five-year-olds benefit from some form of day care or educational provision. Few other countries rival our record—only France and Belgium do—and the Netherlands is the only other country in the Community where children start compulsory full-time education at the age of five.
We believe that central Government have a role in establishing a legislative framework to regulate day care services, to issue general guidance on standards and quality and to test out new initiatives.
We see local authorities not as the monopolistic providers of day care, but increasingly as enablers. They have an important strategic and co-ordinating role to bring together local authority agencies, employers and voluntary groups to ensure that in each area adequate provision can be made for the growing number of children whose parents wish them to benefit from some form of pre-school experience or day care.
The hon. Lady mentioned a scourge on modern life. It is a source of perplexity and great concern that in an age


of unprecedented prosperity we continue to have in our midst children who are the subject of abuse. We have faced a series of harrowing tragedies where children have suffered or lost their lives at the hands of their parents. However, we have made substantial progress in child protection.
I am sure that the hon. Lady is well aware when reporting the number of children on at—risk registers that the figures are difficult to interpret. It is welcome that more neighbours, relations and parents are coming forward to suggest that children are at risk. The statistics have to be interpreted with some subtlety. We plan to reissue the document, "Working Together" which emphasises the central importance of collaboration between agencies. Time and again in child abuse cases the lack of inter-agency collaboration, co-operation and communication was a major source of the child's tragedy. Assisted by the National Children's Home, we are looking to set up a treatment initiative to study the range of treatment facilities currently available for abused children and young perpetrators of abuse. We plan to publish a further study of child abuse inquiry reports. So often the facts are recited at a major inquiry, but we wish to ensure that those facts and lessons are properly disseminated and learnt.
Above all, we recognise that effective training underpins good practice. The Department is devoting £19·4 million to its training support programme including £2·5 million for training on the Children Act and just over £7·3 million for training in child care and child protection. That will be of major assistance to local authorities and will ensure that those which continue to have difficulties—such as the ones to which the hon. Lady referred—can recruit and retain the staff that are so important in providing the necessary care.
Inevitably, co-ordination within Government is important. It is achieved through well-established interdepartmental liaison and working. There is scarcely a Department that does not have some responsibility or involvement with children. We want a co-ordinated, effective and comprehensive approach to child care policy. The interdepartmental group on child abuse was set up in March 1987. Its work is effective and it meets regularly to make further progress.
In the provision of day care, I chair the interdepartmental consultative group on provision of services for under-fives which regularly meets the local authority associations and voluntary bodies. It also includes the Department of Education and Science, the Home Office, the Department of Employment, the Department of the Environment, the Ministry of Defence and the Scottish and Welsh Offices. The ministerial group on women's issues, so ably chaired by my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Home Office, has addressed itself to improving child care options. Recently, a number of initiatives have been set in hand: encouraging the establishment of a national association for commercial consultancies and providers, the Childcare Association; funding work on a new "kitemark" scheme for nurseries and consultancies to give further reassurance to parents; and encouraging schools to provide day care facilities after school hours or during holidays.
At a more recent meeting we set in hand the further provision that will shortly be produced by my Department of the new guidelines and regulations to local authorities on day care for children under eight on which we work closely with the Department of Education and Science.
The programme includes our work with local authorities to help them improve their practice on the registration of day care and the development of information services. When parents require services, they often require the information on how those services can best meet their and their children's needs. Our programme also aims to encourage employers to become involved in providing help with child care for their staff. There is an important role for employers who want to ensure that they can retain their work force as we move towards demographic change. It is important to build them into the partnership. Within Government, we are setting an example. At the last count, 26 Departments had their own holiday play schemes. We believe in example as well as exhortation.
Children's health is an important matter. There has been a continuing improvement in children's health over the past decade. The infant mortality rate and the various associated rates are key indicators not only of the state of maternal and child health and of NHS services but of national well-being. The figures for 1989 are particularly encouraging, showing the rates at their lowest-ever levels. Infant mortality is down from 12·8 to 8·4 per 1,000 births in the past 10 short years; perinatal mortality is down from just over 14 to just over eight per 1,000 births; and neonatal mortality is also down. This is a credit to all those working in the Health Service. It is a stimulus to further improvements in our services.
We are not complacent. Local figures vary between social and ethnic groups. A major initiative which vie announced last year in our reply to the Social Services Committee's report on perinatal, neonatal and infant mortality is designed to help us understand better the reasons for these local variations. Efforts must be more closely targeted to securing their reduction. We are seeking an even better performance. All regional health authorities have been asked to introduce regional epidemiological surveys of stillbirths and neonatal deaths. Each needs at least one paediatric pathologist in post to conduct a review of the need for further posts. Why do particular babies die? What more might be done to prevent their deaths? The confidential inquiry into stillbirths will have an important part to play. These initiatives include a critical review by the Medical Research Council of research into a problem that has caused great concern to many hon. Members—cot death, or sudden infant death syndrome.
Spending on maternity services increased by 16 per cent. in real terms between 1980 and 1988. Nursing and midwifery staff in the key areas of special and neonatal intensive care have increased. We have made progress on many other fronts. The hon. Member for Eccles referred to the source of the greatest number of deaths of young children by accidents—road traffic accidents. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) who has aimed to make everyone aware of the importance of belting up in the back and taking responsibility for children in cars. The Department of Transport recently launched a child road safety campaign in which the NHS is committed to playing its part.
The GP contract is another opportunity to provide better care for children. For the first time, child health surveillance becomes an option from the GP as well as from local community services. Our commitment to promoting improved immunisation rates, again collaborating with GPs, will be a major force for good in


protecting children. Recently, we announced the remarkable new rates of vaccination and immunisation. We have not yet met all the World Health Organisation targets, but we are determined to do so.
We are committed to an integrated child health service. Under our proposals, the district health authority and family health service authority will work together to ensure that there is an integrated health service for children. The system of contracting will allow a more explicit and better analysed provision of services. There is no doubt that the progress that has occurred in past years will be consolidated and developed as our health reforms move forward.
The hon. Member for Eccles referred to the United Nations convention on the rights of the child. The United Kingdom played a leading role in drafting it. We demonstrated our commitment to the convention by signing it in April and aim to ratify it as soon as possible. The convention specifically draws together the rights of the child in one internationally recognised document. It will serve as an international standard against which countries that turn a blind eye to child exploitation, abuse or neglect can be measured.
Progress has been made but challenges remain. The Government's co-ordinated programme of work on children's issues is ensuring that the physical, mental and social welfare of children and their parents is promoted at all times. I urge my hon. Friends to reject the Opposition's motion.

Mrs. Llin Golding: It is repugnant to think of people posing as social workers to get into homes to molest children to satisfy their perverted desires. The distress caused to those families will live with them for a long time. It is imperative that all these perverted people be caught and punished. It is obvious that they are beyond redemption. Such people must be punished with all the force of the law.
But the law still fails to try alleged child molesters. Even when a person has been charged with sexual abuse, and despite the change in the laws on the giving of evidence by children and allowing video links, I am still getting letters from distraught parents where courts are refusing to hear cases. It cannot be right that parents and children learn to have so little faith in our legal system.
The Government should realise how the law is still failing our children and should make a speedy decision to implement in full the report by Judge Pigot of the advisory group on video evidence. Until and unless this far-sighted report is implemented, I can see little progress or justice for children in our courts. We have to do everything possible to reduce the abuse of our youngsters, but to reduce abuse we need not only to punish hut, if possible, to prevent. Of course many child molesters cannot be and have no wish to be reformed, but we know that some feel sick at what they do and desperately seek help. To help our children, we must help them.
There are people such are Ray Wyre of the Gracewell clinic in Birmingham who work hard to try to rehabilitate people who have been convicted of child abuse. But what help is given to assist those who have never been caught and who need help to stop? How many times have the

words, "I knew that I was doing wrong, but I didn't seem able to stop," been said by child abusers? Surely it makes sense to establish some kind of help line and counselling for those who wish to stop this dreadful abuse. We recognise the need for help for alcohol abuse, drug abuse, gambling abuse and, through Relate, for marriage breakdown.
The money, the advertising, the concern and the effort put in to tell desperate people where help is available are to be applauded, but where are the advertisements that say, "Ring this number so that we can help you to stop abusing children"? Surely it makes sense to establish some kind of help line to them. The argument against this is that any help line would be dealing with a criminal act, which it would have a duty to report to the police. I understand that, but when it comes to the protection of children and to saving them from abuse, we must look at the law and the legal position of help with different eyes, and we should say that anything that can be done to safeguard children from suffering should be done.

Mrs. Ann Winterton: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Mrs. Golding: I would rather not give way, because we are pressed for time.
It is obvious that, in order to help our children, we must do something to help child molesters to stop abusing. Molesters cause great harm to many children, but many other children are hurt by our neglect—for example, the neglect to provide safe playgrounds. The Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents reports that last year 50,000 children were injured in playgrounds and a number were killed. Of those children, 11,500 were under five. Imagine the headlines in the tabloid press if 50,000 children were injured in a football stadium in one day. There would be a national uproar, massive media coverage, a public inquiry and calls for Ministers to resign. However, because those injuries are spread throughout the country and throughout the year, hardly anyone notices.
The progress being made by local authorities towards the provision of safe surfaces and safe equipment in playgrounds is painfully slow because of lack of money and the fear of rate capping. If grants can be given to football stadiums—rightly so—to improve safety, why cannot the Government give special grants to local authorities to improve the safety of playgrounds? The children's pain and suffering is no less because the accidents are spread over many days. We have a duty to those 50,000 children to protect them from harm, broken limbs and even death.
Not only do we have a duty to the unknown number of children who suffer abuse and the children who suffer injuries in playgrounds: we also have a duty to provide shelter for all our children. It is a disgrace that, last year, 120,000 households were accepted as homeless by local authorities and that London appears to be in danger of becoming the Delhi of the western world. We need only visit cardboard city, which is only a short walk from the Houses of Parliament, to hear stories of desperation and of young people being criminalised under the vagrancy legislation because society and hon. Members have failed them.
In the 10 years between 1979 and 1989, 1 million families were registered as homeless in this country. That represents about 3 million people, over half of whom were


children. For them that has meant poor living conditions, overcrowding and often insanitary conditions, with no privacy or space to learn or to develop. For too many of our young people, that has been the background to their family life.
We must provide houses for people at rents that they can afford. The housing associations are doing their best. The private sector is failing badly. The Government must make it possible for councils to build houses for those in need. Children deserve warm, comfortable, safe homes.
It is our duty to protect the welfare of children. We in Parliament cannot dodge that responsibility. We must ensure that children receive the protection of the law, that they are not put at risk in playgrounds and that they are brought up in homes worthy of Britain in the 1990s. We should not and we must not fail them.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: It is a sad reflection of the level of interest in the welfare of children among Labour leaders that they have reduced this debate to half a day. We should not scamper through a debate on children. I want to address my remarks on the welfare of children primarily to the health care needs of children and the way those are met in Lancaster, the area that I know best.
Last Thursday, the north Lancashire Child Poverty Action Group produced a report entitled "Poverty in North Lancashire", which was not only highly misleading, but a slur on the hospitals, doctors, nurses and everyone else who provides devoted health care in Lancaster.
The Lancashire CPAG selected Bulk ward, which contains Moor hospital. That is a long-stay mental hospital which has a large number of very elderly, long-stay residents who live there for the closing years of their lives. Not surprisingly, there is quite a high rate of respiratory disorders and deaths from lung cancer in that ward. From that, the report deduces that, if one lives in Bulk ward, one is four times more likely to die of respiratory disease than the average English resident and twice as likely to die of lung cancer. What that has to do with a report which is ostensibly about children I am not quite sure, since we have never had a death from lung cancer in a child and the child death rate in Bulk is similar to that in Silverdale, which can scarcely be described as a deprived area.
The north Lancashire Child Poverty Action Group's report does not give a shred of credit to the local health workers for the many firsts that they had achieved. Ours was the first district to have a child development centre and the first district to attach nursing staff to health care teams and to provide domiciliary physiotherapists, who visit people at home and can help children and others with respiratory problems. The 24-hour domiciliary nursing service was one of the first, if not the first, in the country.
Because of the very high standard of health care in the city, people, including children, come from miles around to benefit from the care that our hospitals provide. When the NHS reforms are implemented next year, and money follows the patient, we will be able to expand our hospital services still further.
In 1988 we had a quite unexpected, sad and inexplicable upturn in perinatal deaths and an inquiry was set up immediately to discover the reason for that, since we had been well below the national average for perinatal deaths

every year from 1976. The inquiry found that those sad deaths were of babies with congenital defects so severe as to be incompatible with survival. The figures soon to be published for 1989 will, thankfully, show that that sad phase is now over and that we are back well below the national average once again. I cannot blame the local Child Poverty Action Group for not knowing that welcome news as the results for 1989 have not yet been published. However, the report is to blame for the equally misleading account of unemployment and its relationship to children.
There are no figures for the percentage unemployed in separate wards. Those figures have simply not been compiled. There are figures for the number of unemployed people living in each ward and I have been receiving those figures for years. However, as there are no figures for the total work force, any percentage figures are pure guesswork.
None of that means that we or anyone concerned with health care for adults or children are in any way complacent in Lancaster. We are all constantly striving to improve services in our hospitals and in the community and to provide better jobs. A new children's unit will bring together almost all the specialist provision for children in one unit. In addition, under the new health reforms, there will be a new area director for the new family practitioner committee area of the Lancaster and Blackpool districts, whose brief is to assess health care needs and to develop services to cope with them.
In particular—I am glad that my hon. Friend the Minister referred to this point—43 local GPs will be able to perform minor surgery, thus cutting waiting times, and no fewer than 23 GPs in the city have received approval to provide a child surveillance service. Children will also undoubtedly benefit from the emphasis on health promotion and preventive medicine in the NHS reforms.
There is, however, one area of Government policy with which I do not agree. I believe that child benefit, as a free-standing, non-means tested payment direct to mothers, should be index-linked, like tax allowances and other benefits. That is what I understood by the pledge in our election manifesto that child benefit will be paid
as now, to the mother.
It is possible that I misunderstood the pledge, but I believe that my interpretation is better than the Governrneni:'s. For many women, child benefit is their only independent source of income and they rely heavily on it. It should be indexed, and I hope that that will be done in the forthcoming expenditure round.
However well we look after the health needs of our children, however much we may improve employment prospects and the material aspects of their lives, the prime ingredient in a child's welfare is, and will remain, a happy, stable home. I am glad that my hon. Friend the Minister placed great emphasis on that.
No marriage, however good, can ever be wholly free of ups and downs—not even that of my hon. Friend the Minister. Indeed, it would be very dull and boring if it were. However, the House bears a heavy responsibility for weakening the marriage bond. The time that must elapse between marriage and divorce has been steadily shortened and the deterrents to living together without undertaking the reciprocal responsibilities of marriage have been steadily diminished. If hon. Members really care about the welfare of children, the House must take a lead in refusing to make divorce ever easier and instead put as much energy


as possible into building up marriage and thus make the best possible contribution to the real and lasting welfare of children.
The declaration of the rights of the child, of which I have a copy, includes in its preamble protection before and after birth. It is a pity that the House forgot that when it cavalierly cast away the Infant Life (Preservation) Act 1929 six weeks ago.

Mr. Ronnie Fearn: Last year I had the opportunity to speak in the House and in Committee during the passage of the Children Bill. That Bill, which is now an Act, did not go far enough for some of the people who are concerned with the welfare of children, but it was welcomed by all as a step in the right direction. The Act consolidates and simplifies the complex law relating to children. It is intended that the Act be brought into force by October 1991, but already the timetable lags behind.
One of the features of the Act and one of the nagging concerns of many hon. Members was that it left many decisions on policies and procedures to regulations by the Secretary of State. Some of those matters can have serious consequences for the children concerned. Before implementation, there must be time for the various bodies concerned with children's welfare to scrutinise and assess the implications of the regulations and, if necessary, to make representations to the Secretary of State. To date, only one regulation has come forth from the Secretary of State for Health. I understand that his time has been taken up with other matters, but that is the very point that I make. Will quick correct decisions be made?
The measures to be introduced in the Act are coming in at a time of great change. Local authorities, which will be responsible for implementing many of the measures contained in the Act, are facing massive upheavals. Now and in the next few years, local government will be expected to come with changes in our schools through local management, the national curriculum, competitive tendering, the privatisation of services, the Local Government and Housing Act 1989, community care, changes to our National Health Service and, as everyone is only too aware, a restructuring of the financial system, with the consequential nightmare of the administration of the poll tax. Each of those items affects the welfare of our children.
I firmly believe that the Children Act 1989 does not go far enough. As I said on Second Reading on 27 April 1989, the Act does not address such important factors as inadequate housing, low incomes, general deprivation and other issues that were aggravated by the Government's lack of concern and by their policies for local government, child allowance and social security payments. Things have got dramatically worse.
Homelessness has increased by 20 per cent. Over the past three years, the number of homeless households placed in temporary accommodation has increased by 25 per cent. The number of young people between the ages of 16 and 19 who, under the Children Act are still regarded as children and who are homeless and, on the streets of London, is estimated as at least 50,000. Those people do not appear in the official statistics. When we add that figure to the 362,309 homeless persons, as estimated by

Shelter, it adds up to many hundreds of children living in conditions that are detrimental if not outright harmful to their health, well-being and quality of life.
In 1987, there were more than 450 known cases of children being taken into care simply because of homelessness. I wonder what the figure is today—perhaps the Minister can enlighten us.
Children of homeless families are known to suffer physically, emotionally and educationally. They have a poor chance in life. There are short-term, medium-term and long-term remedies for relieving the number of homeless. Most of them are well documented, including those contained in my party's White Paper entitled "Housing: A Time for Action" and in the document entitled "Seen But Not Heard", which was launched today by my right hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown). The Government have the power to do something, and they must not neglect their duty. Surely in this day and age children have a right to a roof over their heads.
Poverty is one of the main causes of homelessness, but, even for those who are lucky enough to have a home, poverty is a major factor in poor health. The number of known families with children living below the poverty line has increased enormously over the past few years. It is a common perception that, since the Goverment took office, the rich have got richer and the poor have got poorer. The effects of the high interest rates and the rising inflation of the past two years alone must give some truth to that statement. Ilowever, the one benefit that is directed specifically at children has been frozen for years. The restoration of its value would go a long way towards improving the life styles of children from low-income families.
Current trends in society and in the market demand that more and more mothers go out to work, yet we still have one of the worst European Community records in the provision of nursery and child care. Once again, the Goverment's policy on tax relief for workplace nurseries, although welcome as an anti-discriminatory measure, will prove beneficial only to those who by definition already have an adequate income because they pay more tax. Nursery care, out-of-school care and other child care services should be a major priority for all children, but such care is even more important for the disadvantaged. There is a general duty on local authorities to provide services for children in need, but the wording of the duty is not as strong as many would have hoped, and the delivery of such services may depend on adequate funding and resources.
That is unfortunately true of many of the Government's measures and changes. I say "unfortunately" because, although some of the ideas are right, I do not believe that they are introduced for the best reasons. Most changes are taking place because of political ideology rather than interest in the welfare of the child or other client. Part of that ideology is to save the public purse.
The measures contained in the Children Act and in the proposed changes to community care will call not only for a change in attitude in social services but for training in various skills. The proposed changes could work well as long as local government is given the funds and resources required to implement them. Some of the proposals currently being implemented in education may also have some benefits, but, until the Government realise that they


need to provide for the anomalies that have appeared in the funding mechanism, chaos will still reign and our children will lose.
I do not think that adequate funding for the proposals in the new health Bill will help to improve our Health Service. The proposals can only damage a health service that was designed to provide comprehensive health care free at the point of delivery. They will also have a detrimental effect on the health of our children. Once again, those in need will suffer most. I fear for the future. The debacle that we have seen with the introduction of the poll tax and future pressure on local government finance may bring about the end of many personal social services that are vital to the well-being of the community as a whole.
When funds are scarce, local authorities will need to set priorities. It is difficult to judge priorities in the provision of such vital services, and it is likely that the services that are not already in place will be the first to get the axe. That does not augur well for services that contribute to the welfare of children.
I have tried to cover many topics, but, because the welfare of children depends on so many of our institutions, we should go further. The Department of Health, the Department of Education and Science, the Department of the Environment, and the Department of Social Security have a major part to play. At local level, education, health, social service and social security offices interplay. Co-operation and co-ordination are essential. Some local authorities are already achieving a level of co-operating and co-ordinating their work—others are dragging their feet for one reason or another.
All those bodies need Government support, possibly institutional, to encourage them and to guide them. At the very least, we need a national strategy for the welfare of children—a clear statement of aims, objectives and rights that can form the framework within which all the departments and bodies concerned with children can work. That would make their job a great deal easier.
On Second Reading of the Children Act, I called upon the Government to take the opportunity of attaching a children's charter to it. I failed in my attempt, but I was pleased to have the opportunity to table an early-day motion to welcome the United Nations convention on the rights of the child. I urge the Government to take the necessary measures to ratify the convention and to use it as a base upon which to build a national strategy for the welfare of our children.

Mr. Roger Sims: I was impressed and pleased when I saw that the Opposition had chosen the welfare of children as the subject for today's debate. However, my feelings soon changed when I found—as my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman) has commented—that at short notice the debate had been reduced to half a day to allow a debate on eye tests. That is an issue on which I share the Opposition's view, but the timing is singularly inappropriate and it is unfortunate that that debate led to the curtailing of this debate.
Then I saw the opening words of the Opposition's motion, which are pure party political claptrap. I then read the rest of the lengthy motion in which there is no mention of the Children Act 1989, which is surely the most

important piece of legislation in this area to have passed through the House in this Parliament—or, indeed, for a century. It is the most important piece of legislation since the original Prevention of Cruelty to, and Protection of, Children Act 1889.
The passing of the 1989 Act was marked by all-party support throughout. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that the hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) and his hon. Friends who served on the Standing Committee deserve some of the credit for the success of that Act, but that legislation has been completely ignored in the Opposition's motion. It is deplorable that the Opposition should now choose children as the basis on which to launch a party political attack. That does not reflect any credit on them.
The Children Act struck the right balance between the rights of children, the rights of parents and the responsibility of the state in the form of the local authorities. Alas, we all know the long string of cases, followed by inquiries, when the social worker has intervened too late. Cleveland is still fresh in our minds; to put it no higher, in some cases the social workers were too precipitate. It was important that we should get that balance right, and I hope and pray that we did so in the Children Act. Among the Act's many notable features is the recognition of the principle that the child's welfare is paramount. The Act introduced the emergency protection order, and especially the child assessment order, which is such an important step in allowing access to a child where there is concern, but not necessarily an emergency.
We have passed the Act and it is now up to the local authorities to implement it, together, of course, with the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, which is named in the Act and which, as the House knows, has 66 child protection teams on 24-hour call in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. The House will be aware of my interest in and involvement with t he NSPCC. Needless to say, my reference to the society in no way diminishes my admiration for the work of the other organisations to which the hon. Member for Eccles (Miss Lestor) referred.

Mrs. Ann Winterton: I know of my hon. Friend's support for the work of the NSPCC, but is he aware ofits work in funding Westminster house in Warrington, which is the first team effort of its kind for child protection? That centre is right next to the courts and social services which, together with the NSPCC, combine in trying to provide good services for children from Cheshire and further afield. I understand that it is the first such centre in this country.

Mr. Sims: I am not familiar with the project that my hon. Friend has mentioned, but it is typical of the way in which local authorities and organisations such as the NSPCC can work together for the benefit of children.
I was pleased that my hon. Friend the Minister detailed the extra funds that will be provided. We cannot emphasise too strongly how vital it is that adequate resources are available to provide both the facilities needed to implement the Children Act and the training for those with the job of implementing it.
We all understand the demands that are placed on the Government from all quarters and what happens during the public expenditure survey, but, as the hon. Member for Southport (Mr. Fearn) said, we must all recognise that


local authorities have particular difficulties at the moment in introducing the community care provisions of existing legislation—the Children Act, and other measures. If adequate resources are not provided for the implementation of the Children Act, all our efforts in the House will have been in vain. It would not be the first time that we have been accused of passing legislation for the ends but not providing the means.
The motion refers to co-ordination between organisations in gathering information. A lot is going on in that area; much of it, such as the register, follows initiatives from the NSPCC. There is a need for research into understanding child abuse and the most effective forms of intervention. We must consider how best the various agencies—medical, social work and police—can work together in this area.
We should not underestimate the size of the problem or the number of children who need protection. To quote but one statistic, in the year to the end of September 1989, 49,000 children were referred to the NSPCC alone. The NSPCC estimates that nationally probably 8,000 children suffer physical abuse, 6,000 are sexually abused and thousands suffer from neglect or emotional abuse or are simply left alone for many hours.
Our approach should be based on the four principles of the United Nations convention—the four Ps of prevention, protection, provision and participation. Prevention involves the development of, for example, drop-in facilities and self-help groups for young parents. Even earlier, we should include preparation for parenthood—how important that is—in the school curriculum. Prevention also includes making the public more aware of the problem by organised publicity such as the NSPCC's "Listen to Children" campaign.
Protection involves the proper training of social workers to ensure that children at risk are protected. As the hon. Member for Eccles said, it is not acceptable to have children on the at-risk register if a social worker is not assigned to them.
Provision means the provision of help to families and single parents who are poor, inadequate or homeless. Those are often the circumstances in which abused children are found. Such children are in danger of growing up and perhaps eventually becoming abusing parents themselves—and continuing the cycle.
Participation means giving the children themselves access to help through things such as Childline—the NSPCC's child protection line.
I join the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mrs. Golding) in urging the Government to implement the Pigot report so that children can be involved in court proceedings through video—recorded evidence and do not have to suffer the trauma of appearing personally. We must ensure that children are properly represented in court proceedings by independent guardians ad litem.
Children should be involved as far as possible in decisions affecting their future. Against the four principles of prevention, protection, provision and participation, the Government have a record of promotion of the welfare of children of which they can be proud. They should be proud but not complacent. Ministers know better than I do that there remains a great deal to be done. Certainly, the ratification of the UN convention would, as the

Opposition motion suggests, be an earnest of the Government's commitment to the cause of the welfare of children. I realise that my hon. Friend the Minister could not give a specific date, but I urge her to use all her influence to ensure that ratification takes place as soon as possible.

Mr. David Hinchliffe: I pay tribute to the Opposition Front Bench for giving us tonight the opportunity to raise issues of great concern to many of our constituents. I found it amusing that my Front-Bench colleagues were attacked for allowing only three hours for this debate. At least we have three hours. The Opposition have taken that initiative. It is a great pity that the Government have not taken such an initiative.
My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mrs. Golding) referred to worries about bogus social workers. That is a particular problem and worry for many people in the Yorkshire area, where the largest number of incidents has been reported. The figure mentioned at the police conference earlier this week was about 170, of which they are taking seriously approximately 30. I wish to express my anxiety that, although there have been many incidents and many descriptions have been given of the individuals involved, no arrests have been made and no one has been brought to book. I do not criticise the police: I simply ask whether police forces are allocating sufficient resources to the police officers conducting the investigations. Perhaps the Minister could raise the matter with her Home Office colleagues.
I had hoped that the Minister for Health would remain in the Chamber, because the Department of Health has a responsibility in the issue of bogus social workers. It is in a position to make clear to the public precisely what social workers can and cannot do. The Minister will be aware, as I am, that the powers of social workers on the doorstep are limited. In view of the extent of the problem, the Department should have issued a clear statement through the Government's publicity machine informing the public what powers social workers have. I hope that the Minister will communicate to her hon. Friend the Minister for Health my anxieties about the matter. The Department could be helpful in following the example of the British Association of Social Workers and several local authorities by issuing a statement such as I suggested explaining to the public what social workers can and cannot do.
I had the positive experience not too long ago, along with the hon. Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Sims) and some of my hon. Friends, of serving on the Standing Committee on the Children Bill. There was a consensus within the Committee, and the two sides worked together in a positive way, as the hon. Member for Chislehurst said. I am worried by the complete failure of the Government properly to fund the implementation of that legislation. That anxiety has been expressed to me by local authorities, councillors and directors of social services and, indeed, by voluntary organisations involved in child care. It is estimated that, in the next financial year, local authorities will need £140 million of additional resources to implement the legislation properly. If the Government are serious about the Children Act 1989, they must provide the money required at grass roots level to implement the good work that could arise from it.
The Minister could also communicate to the Minister for Health that local authorities are worried by the lack of guidance from the Department of Health on the implementation of the Children Act 1989. I understand that local authorities were promised about 30 sets of notes of guidance some considerable time ago. The documents were due to be released by the Department of Health but they have yet to appear. In view of the time scale for implementation, it is about time that the Department of Health got its act together to get the information through to local authorities.
As I said, I and some Conservative Members felt that there was a political consensus in the Committee on the Children Bill. However, it has become apparent in the debate tonight that there is no political consensus about the reasons behind the problems faced by children who come to the attention of local authority child care and social services departments and the problems that vast numbers of children at risk face day by day.
We have heard comments from Conservative Members about parental responsibility. As a parent, I take that responsibility seriously. I am sure that any parent takes it seriously. It is the responsibility to give the child food and shelter. But it is easier for some parents to exercise that responsibility than for others. That is the difference between the two sides of the Chamber tonight. Opposition Members recognise that fact. What annoys me deeply about the Government's tactics in the welfare of children is the way in which they deliberately encourage the belief that child neglect and abuse should be viewed simply as abnormal family behaviour—as an individual, not a societal matter. I feel strongly about that.
For much of the time before I became a Member of Parliament, I was involved directly in dealing with cases of child neglect and abuse in my work in social services. It is worrying that the Government see child abuse and neglect as a technical problem which needs technical solutions. They do not see it in the wider context that my hon. Friend the Member for Eccles (Miss Lestor) outlined. My hon. Friend was accused of playing politics. We are not playing politics: we are examining the real issues behind many of the problems which face children who are abused, neglected and hurt in our society.
It is vital that child welfare is seen in a wider political context and that we examine and address the causes, not just the symptoms presented day by day to social services departments. The causes include poverty. Let us be honest about it. Both Conservative and Opposition Members recognise that there is poverty in our society. Whatever one's politics, we can see it in our surgeries every week. People simply do not have enough to live on and are driven to desperation in many instances.
From the work that I have done, in social services, as a councillor and as a Member of Parliament, I recognise the connection between poverty and the number of children who end up in care. The figures on children in care show that most of them come from poor families. That is no coincidence.
During the recess last week, I read a book called "The Politics of Child Welfare" written by two former colleagues of mine in West Yorkshire, Nick Frost and Mike Steen. One quote from that book rang home with me, because it made sense:
The families of the poor have little left to lose. Why should they lose their children?

Let us take the issue seriously. It is wrong that we take the children of poor people into care. We should look for alternatives. At present we often do not do so.
I do not need to quote the Social Services Select Committee report, which makes it clear that the position of the poor had worsened under this Government. That has directly affected vast numbers of children and we should be ashamed of it. I do not need to mention unemployment, but there is a clear correlation between family breakdown and unemployment. It has been widely researched and there is objective political consensus that it has a bearing on family and marriage breakdown. In my area there has been an 800 per cent. increase in homelessness. Children are entering care simply because their parents do not have a decent house for them to live in. That is a scandal in this day and age, yet it is happening today, this week, this year. It is wrong.
I am only the second or third man to speak in this debate. It is interesting that we have a predominance of women in the Chamber for this debate, and I welcome it. I only wish that more women were Members of Parliament. They have a particular contribution to make on this issue.
Sexual inequality has a direct relationship with sexual abuse. We should look at the matter and not play politics with child sexual abuse, as some hon. Members do. We should seriously consider why these problems arise. Sexual abuse is predominantly about male power and the way in which society allows a distorted construction of masculinity. It is particularly distorted by the squalid commercial use of sex. It is interesting that the newspapers that peddle pornography are those that strongly support the Conservative Government. There is a clear correlation between the two. We need to address the fact that certain men turn out as they do. It is difficult for us males to do that. I hope that we shall have more time in the Chamber to address those difficult issues.
I am worried about how we address the problems of children at risk in terms of supervision, not prevention. If something goes wrong, we blame the social worker, the health visitor, the lack of inter-agency co-operation, bad parenting or bad professional practice, but not bad policies or bad Governments. It is about time that we started looking at how bad policies and bad Governments, of whatever political complexion, have a bearing on what happens to children.
There is a desperate need to change the agenda on child welfare to tackle the causal factors of the problems—for example, how we treat the poor, how we treat black people and how men treat women. We need to look at those issues. Above all, we need a strategy that looks not just at the clinical treatment of individual children and individual families, but at overall economic and housing policies and policies on sexual equality. Issue after issue has a bearing on the lives of children. That strategy will be number one on the list of priorities of the forthcoming Labour Government, and I look forward to their election.

Mrs. Maureen Hicks: Tonight the Opposition have chosen to put child welfare at the top of their agenda for one evening, although, unfortunately, there are not many here to witness it. Contrary to what their motion says, over the past 11 years children have always been at the top of our agenda.
I welcome the debate because it helps to provide an umbrella welfare policy over all the measures from the many Departments, including the Departments of Health, of Social Security and of Employment. All are involved in the needs of children. Unfortunately, the Opposition have opposed many of the measures that we have introduced in the past 11 years. I hoped that tonight the hon. Member for Eccles (Miss Lestor) might suggest some constructive policies, but in their absence from her rather gloomy speech I remind her of Labour Members' vociferous opposition to our education reforms.
Education is the basis of any child's development. If the ground rules are not firmly established at an early stage in a child's education, all talk of the child's welfare may as well go out of the window. Parents, teachers and peer groups are children's greatest role models. If their important influence and example are felt in early years, many later problems, particularly in teenage years, could be slashed. Although I am a career woman, I am the first to admit that there is no one quite like mum. If mums can possibly stay at home for the first five years of a child's life—I know that in many cases mothers must work—that child will have a stable start in life.
I am encouraged by the progress that we have made in bringing parents and education closer together. That has been neglected in the past. Not so long ago, many schools did not welcome parents into the classrooms, and parents were not encouraged to form parent-teacher associations; now, at long last, they are not being kept at arm's length. Our reforms involve parents in knowing what their children should be learning, and when they should learn, in assessing their children's ability potential and in knowing their children's weaknesses and strengths throughout the crucial school years. Parents are now encouraged to become school governors, to choose where their children go to school and—in many ways—to say who should run their school.
I was disappointed that the hon. Member for Eccles did not mention the role of parents. Nothing gave me more pleasure than visiting a school in my constituency and seeing many mums informally reading with their children: it was not just a few children and parents, but a hallful. One more ingredient must be added to the education reforms. I know that I could be labelled old-fashioned, but to formulate successfully the foundation for our children's education we must give them sound discipline. I am not alone among parents in saying that if we restored corporal punishment it would be a great help to teachers. Any debate on the welfare of children cannot get away from the subject of discipline.
Of course more mothers are going out to work. I fear that, as a result, in some areas where it is difficult to provide child care and parents have not adequate resources there could be an increase in the number of latch-key children hanging round waiting for their parents to come home from work. I am encouraged that the Government have taken the initiative to write to chief education officers and school governors to ask for school premises to be made available after school, and—more important—during school holidays. It is ridiculous that school sports facilities, for instance, are closed for a third of the year. In inner cities such as mine, many children live

in high-rise areas, and have not had experience of green areas. I am sure that we could encourage more education authorities to make school facilities available.

Ms. Mildred Gordon: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Mrs. Hicks: I cannot give way; time is pressing.
People sometimes forget that children are their parents' responsibility, and not society's. Some parents abdicate that responsibility which imposes a burden on the rest of society. It is encouraging that, to assist the Government and parents, many action groups are now coming forward. It is sad to hear that children—some barely out of their prams—are tempted to smoke, drink and, certainly in my area, to sniff glue and take drugs. I congratulate groups such as the "parents' action against tobacco" campaign, which aims to discourage shopkeepers from selling cigarettes to children; the Portman group, which aims to deter underage drinking; and the Birmingham Post campaign to try to stop shopkeepers providing children as young as 14 with video nasties which should be given only to people over 18. All those initiatives should be endorsed.
The hon. Member for Eccles mentioned the power of television advertising. I would go a step further. We talk of the influence of parents, schools, and children's peer groups, but the influence of television is especially worrying. From the age of four onwards, children are watching an average of three to four hours' television a night. I am sure that none of us would support that, as it is a great tragedy and a bad influence on our children. Children now have greater expectations and more pocket money. Those are all social trends that contribute to the welfare debate.
I know that the Opposition throw stones at us about the number of homeless children today. Many do not choose to make themselves homeless, but I am disappointed to hear Opposition Members suggest that we should encourage young people to take the option to leave home to go to London should they wish, and allow them to sleep rough.

Miss Lestor: Who said that?

Mrs. Hicks: My hon. Friend the Minister also informed us that many young people are driven out of their homes. Families should do all that they can to keep together.
In common with the Minister, I encourage every young person into training. As the option for training on YTS or whatever is available to every child, I am amazed that Opposition Members should suggest that if a child does not want such training it need not take it. Surely our aim must be to encourage children to train so that, ultimately, they can get jobs.
I know that many of my constituents welcome the forthcoming Criminal Justice Bill as they hope that it will contain further measures to make parents responsible for their children's criminal actions. I have no doubt that if parents have to go before a court and pay some of the fines imposed on their children that will make them more responsible for their children's actions.
I recognise that domestic violence and divorce are increasing. Those are serious issues and, as things are getting worse, I have no doubt that the Government will need to consider them more closely. It is inevitable that domestic violence and divorce cause emotional problems for children and financial resource problems for the


Government. It is right that we are taking steps to make fathers who leave their wives and children more responsible. At the moment only a quarter of fathers make the desired payments and it is right that the Government should act.
I also applaud the work of the agency Relate. If we can prevent children from being harmed in any way and families from being broken up, we must support agencies such as Relate whose voluntary workers do their best to keep families together.
I found the Opposition's motion somewhat waffley and I have not heard many constructive policies from Labour Members. I know that the Labour party has put forward many proposals in its policy document and perhaps tonight was an opportunity to give some of them an airing. However, the hon. Member for Eccles did not mention nursery education, perhaps because she is aware of the 50 per cent. increase in nursery school provision by the Government. Perhaps she is also aware of the cuts imposed by the previous Labour Government. I believe that I am right in saying that the hon. Lady was Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education when considerable cuts were made in educational provision and that she was forced to resign.

Miss Lestor: I was not forced.

Mrs. Hicks: I admire the hon. Lady for following her principles.
When the Labour party criticises our measures on child welfare it should remember that it made hasty promises in the past about nursery education for every child. We have sustained our promises and the Labour party would be ill-advised to make new promises that it cannot keep.
Tonight has been a valuable opportunity to discuss the many issues involved in the welfare of children. This has been an important debate and I thank the Opposition for choosing to discuss the subject. The Conservative party is committed to children and they are safe with us. Our policies prove that we are responsible towards them and many of the Acts that we have produced recently demonstrate that.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Last November I asked a series of questions and, over a number of weeks, pursued lines of inquiry about the sexual abuse of children. If we have been asked for plain speaking tonight I should remind the House that, in 1988, 13 people were charged with the murder of an infant under one year of age, 229 people were charged with cruelty or neglect of children, 56 people were charged with child abduction, there were 2,159 cases of indecent assault on a female aged under 16 and 320 cases of buggery with a boy under 16 or with a woman or an animal.
Tonight in the main line stations of this city many young people will come here lost and in need of advice. Many of them will have run away from those role models about which we have just heard—those very parents who should provide care and consideration for them. Many will be at risk from adults whose depraved tastes are such that they not only continually seek the company of children whom they seek to corrupt and attack but also continually seek access to child pornography.
In 1992 the gates of our country will be opened to even more child pornography under the name of freedom of

trade. What do the Government intend to do about that? What do they intend to do about the work of the interdepartmental committee about which the Minister has spoken and which is carrying on day by day? What results can they offer us in the encouragement of police forces to set up specialised units to deal with child pornography, and with attacks on children and in providing proper resources and proper back-up forces? There is no point in blaming a police force which is undermanned and under attack because of the amount of money that it requires from local authorities if the Government are not prepared to treat this matter seriously.
I asked for a programme of the work of the interdepartmental committee because I wanted to see what had happened since November about the work that is so essential. I looked at many of the studies that are being undertaken and I was horrified by the tiny amounts of money that are being allocated. Professional intervention in child abuse rates £23,000. Intervention in child sexual abuse rates £225,000. In the list of subjects to be considered I found under the heading of
Feasibility of a prevalence study
the news that
This will examine the feasibility of a study to provide reliable estimates of the scale of sexual abuse of children in England and Wales.
Parliament does not know how many children are being abused day after day and night after night. We come here and trot out cliches about role models and caring Governments, but Parliament has no access to the information that would enable it to decide where to send money or where to provide facilities. We do not have enough social workers or trained teachers and we are even losing many people from our police forces whom we will need to deal with the abuse of children that is becoming a real danger every day of the week.
When we go away this subject will disappear, but abused children will not. The House requires better of the Government than a simple listing of amounts of money. Every voluntary organisation in the land is committed and we know that people of good will exist. How can the Government answer not just to hon. Members but to the people who elected them by saying, "We mean well and we are committed to a general good idea of parental authority. Unfortunately, we have no intention of spending money, time or effort to do anything to protect those who are most at risk"?

Mr. Ian Taylor: The Opposition are to be congratulated on giving us at least a half-day debate" because it gave the Minister a chance to put forward a robust explanation of the Government's policy towards children and the family. That is now on the record and will give great heart to Conservatives throughout Britain who are concerned about these issues and worried about the efforts of the Government. I congratulate the Minister on showing how co-ordinated those efforts are, not only in their scope but in the way that they are beginning to interrelate.
Many of us who were worried about family matters and their relationship to children were perhaps under the impression that policy had not been carefully thought through, but, clearly, we are out of date and the Minister is ahead of the game. In that context I look forward to the


winding-up speech of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Social Security who I know has been putting in a great deal of effort on these matters in the Department.
There is no difference between the Government and the Opposition in terms of our genuine concern for children. There is also no difference in our understanding that the Government have a clear role in dealing with problems. We have heard about the many measures that the Government have brought forward. The difference seems to lie in understanding what the voluntary sector can do. Some Opposition Members have shown not so much a disdain for voluntary organisations but a concern that the work that they do is not being undertaken by the Government. I think that it is a positive virtue that it is being done by voluntary organisations, which have skills that are specifically related to the task that they are undertaking. These organisations are the closest to the problems. I welcome their work——

Ms. Gordon: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Taylor: No. I have little time to make my speech. If more time were available to me, I would willingly give way.
The reality is that voluntary organisations are doing excellent work. I am sure that all of us have connections with them and that we would all like to cite what they are doing. Recently, I came across the National Playing Fields Association and its mean streets campaign. It is an excellent way of highlighting some of the problems that arise in urban areas and an example of the effective way in which a voluntary organisation can work with local and national government.
There is no doubt that the Government have spent record sums on many of the areas of concern to which attention has been drawn tonight. The Government have produced the Children Act 1989, which provides an important legal framework. However, the welfare of children is not confined to state or Government intervention. Our concern must focus also on parental responsibility and family values. My hon. Friend the Minister for Health has talked eloquently about parental responsibility, and that is a central consideration. The Government have a role in protecting and developing the child and his environment, but they cannot be a substitute for the family. Therefore, we should judge the Government's role and the scope of their policy by how well they create conditions that encourage family life and remove obstacles to the betterment of that life.
It is with great sadness that all of us have noted figures that show that the background against which teenagers are growing up is of considerable concern. Some of the statistics are worth recounting even if they are known to hon. Members. We know that one in three marriages ends in divorce and that the divorce rate in Britain is one of the highest in Europe. Births outside marriage account for 25 per cent. of all births. The number of lone-parent families in receipt of income support is about 725,000. That is the latest figure in my possession. These are worrying statistics. The Government are not to blame for them, but the important consideration is how they react to them. Also important is the change in moral values within society.
Homelessness has rightly been mentioned, because it affects children. It is interesting that 43 per cent. of those who are classified as homeless cite as the cause of their plight the break-up of family life and the lack of ability or willingness of the family to accommodate them. Another 17 per cent. cite the breakdown of a relationship with a partner as the cause of homelessness. This background is important to the way in which our children develop and the way in which they begin to learn to face the world.
The Government are tackling the issues, and various figures have been mentioned. It is important to note that £10 billion will be spent in 1990–91 on a range of benefits for the family. That is an increase of 25 per cent. in real terms since 1979. That is to be compared with a net decline under the last Labour Government—this is in real terms of course—of over 8 per cent. That justifies the Government's confidence that we are doing our best. Further efforts are being directed to the homeless to try to hold families together. My hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning has announced a specific scheme that will target directly several millions of pounds to agencies such as the citizens advice bureaux and SHAC. That is important because they can give on-the-spot counselling to enable families to stay together and perhaps reduce the likelihood of children leaving their homes and becoming homeless.
I am sure that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Social Security will draw attention to the fact that we are targeting income support directly at those who are the poorest. I understand what my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman) says about child benefit. She made a powerful contribution which was based on great experience. The problem with child benefit is that, even if it were increased, it would not benefit those receiving income support.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: It gives the mother a little independence.

Mr. Taylor: My hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster is certainly a person of great independence. I do not challenge that, but I believe that the Government are right to target income support rather than increase the more general provision of child benefit.
The Government are beginning to do the right thing in other areas of child welfare and parental responsibility. Although at least one Opposition Member objected to the Government's efforts to make parents more responsible for the behaviour of juveniles, I believe that they are generally welcomed. I go further, and suggest that parents should also serve a period of community service, rather than just make juveniles perform that obligation.
I am delighted that my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury recently announced that the Inland Revenue will provide the private addresses of parents to enable the Department of Social Security to chase up those who should be making maintenance payments—such as the husbands of women who are still bringing up their children.
Sadly, our debate on this important subject has been too short. Parental responsibility is a vital factor. Unless the Government encourage parents to take more responsibility for their children, no amount of legislative measures will by themselves be effective. The present Government have a fine record. We must build on it to


ensure that parents play their part in a partnership that will make certain that our children will grow up in a better and safer world.

Mrs. Rosie Barnes: In the few minutes available to me, I shall draw the attention of the House to a particular group of children about whom I have grown increasingly concerned in recent months. I refer to children in care. Contrary to popular belief, the concept of taking children into care and thereby affording them a degree of protection that has hitherto been missing from their lives is all too often no more than a myth. I do not mean to disparage the efforts of the many dedicated social and care workers, and the people who run our children's homes to the very best of their abilities, in attempting to provide a reasonable life for youngsters who have invariably had a difficult start. However, I am increasingly drawn to the conclusion that many children's homes are unloving, brutal places—and I do not use those words lightly.
Repeated complaints by children in care have been ignored over the decades, for a variety of reasons. When children are placed in care, they are sometimes put at greater risk than had they remained at home. One hon. Member remarked that all too often a social worker intervenes too late. I should like to be certain that, when a social worker intervenes, and when a child is taken into care, the provision made for that child is better than that which it left behind.
Dr. Michael Lindsay is a children's rights officer in Leicester who works also for an organisation called Voice for the Child in Care. Earlier this year, he wrote to draw my attention to some of the work that he has done in investigating 30 cases in which inquiries were made into the conduct of the staff of certain children's homes over a 10-year period. Those were just the cases that came to light following intense pressure—usually from the media. Dr. Lindsay has, like me, reached the conclusion that one is dealing not with a number of isolated incidents involving particular offences but a trend that is endemic in children's homes.
Children's homes are, for a variety of reasons, forced to employ people who have not been properly vetted, and who do not have the skills necessary for dealing with the sometimes very difficult children who are brought to them for care and attention. The children who are easiest to look after are usually fostered or adopted. It is the most difficult children who remain in institutions.
In Greenwich, two investigations into local children's homes have produced frightening results. In one case, the local ombudsman was the final resort for the children in question, after previous inquiries had whitewashed complaints. The ombudsman's report said that there was an
almost total lack of professionalism
among senior staff. Talking about the experience of one girl, the report said:
Whatever innocence or childhood she had left was lost … This may well have affected her future life and her ability to form relationships".
Physical, sexual and emotional abuse were highlighted, as well as bad language by staff, under-age drinking and sexual relationships between staff and children.
I know that the pressures on time mean that I cannot develop the argument that I would wish to make for a better review of the situation of children in care, including

independent access for them to make complaints. I ask the Minister to consider initiating a serious study into the experiences of children currently in care and those who have been left in care.
Before I came to the House, I was involved in a number of such projects on other subjects commissioned by the Central Office of Information. A thorough and professional study would shock the nation into the action which is so long overdue.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mrs. Gillian Shephard): This has been a wide-ranging debate of great interest and importance to the House. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Eccles (Miss Lestor) for giving the House the opportunity to debate these issues. Her interest in the welfare of children is well known and has been demonstrated over the years.
I shall respond to as much as possible of what has been said, although time will not allow me to speak on all the main issues raised.
With reference to health and those matters specifically connected with the Children Act 1989, my hon. Friend the Minister for Health, who opened the debate so skilfully, has been present throughout most of it and will have taken note of the subjects raised. We will both ensure that matters which concern other ministerial colleagues are referred to them.
I shall briefly mention some of the excellent contributions from hon. Members on both sides of the House. My hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman) gave her usual spirited defence of Lancaster health authority. I am sorry that she is not in her place—[HON. MEMBERS: "She is."]—yes, she nearly is. It is always a pleasure to acknowledge her enthusiasm for Lancaster health authority.
My hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Sims) again demonstrated his deep knowledge of the subject, and the experience that he has drawn from his association with the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children.
I was impressed by some of the points made by the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe), particularly on bogus social workers and what the public expect of social workers. I, too, have had long experience and association with social services departments and have been struck by the ambivalence of the public's attitude to what is required of social workers. It causes great difficulty and is something with which the Government, the British Association of Social Workers and the Association of Directors of Social Services grapple, and it seems difficult to find a solution.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Hicks) gave her usual impassioned defence of parental and individual responsibility for which I thank her.
My hon. Friend the Member for Esher (Mr. Taylor) has taken a particular interest in the work of voluntary organisations on homelessness, particularly among young people, and I thank him for his contribution.
In introducing the Government's response to the debate I can do no better than refer the House to the 42 principles of good child care practice which underline the Children Act. I, too, find it strange that the Opposition omitted to refer in their motion to the Act and the 42 principles. The


Children Act represents the most comprehensive contribution to the welfare of children that has ever been enacted by Parliament, and the 42 principles form an excellent base for a children's charter.
Children and their families are important to us all. During the past decade the Government have sought to strike a balance between family autonomy and parental responsibility and the protection of children by the state, where that is necessary. We have emphasised the practical, in the belief—repeated only a few weeks ago by my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Home Office in a debate on the family—that the family is the basic building block of society. The aim of Government policy, co-ordinated throughout Government Departments, has been to emphasise the central role of the family in society.
The Government do not believe that part of their role is to develop grand social engineering schemes. However, they can and do promote the interests of the family by encouraging independence and choice while at the same time providing help for families who are unable to cope with the wide range of contemporary pressures that face many of them today. The vast majority of parents are able and willing to take their responsibilities seriously. It is curious that little mention has been made by the Opposition of parents' enthusiasm for their role. For those parents, who are in the majority, the Government, by developing a prosperous economy, have provided choice and independence. However, they must provide help for families in difficulty, for whatever reason.
Reference has been made to child benefit and the income levels of families with children. While responding to those points, may I make a few general remarks about the Government's social security policies. The House is already aware that in the coming year the Government plan to spend a record £55 billion on social security. That represents the third increase in real terms since we came to office. It amounts to £20 a week for every man, woman and child in the country.
It is worth bearing in mind the fact that because of the Government's economic policies—increased earnings, lower taxation and higher personal allowances—there has been a growth of £20 a week during the past year in the take-home pay of a married man on average earnings. Other tax changes, such as independent taxation for women, will also result in increased incomes for better-off families. For less well-off families, we have been able to direct specific help towards families with children—including lone parents—and the disabled through income support and family credit.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: It is not only better-off families who will benefit from independent taxation. Pensioner wives on moderate incomes will now be able to count their part of the pension against their tax allowance.

Mrs. Shephard: My hon. Friend is right.
For the less well-off, we have been able to direct specific help towards families with children, through income support and family credit. Family credit in particular provides a significant tax-free cash income, payable to over 300,000 low-income working families with children. The same families obviously do not benefit over a period,

which means that far more than 300,000 families receive help. The average payment is over £27 a week. In nearly every case family credit is paid to the mother.
To target resources on those in need involves making judgments about the needs of different groups at different times. It was no doubt with the need for flexibility in mind that when the Opposition introduced child benefit 15 years ago their legislation required child benefit to be reviewed but not to be indexed annually. When my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security was considering last year's uprating of child benefit he had to consider all the circumstances, including the increase in average take-home pay and the fact that an automatic increase in child benefit would not help the least well-off families on income support and family credit because those benefits are adjusted to take account of changes in the child benefit.

Mr. Robert Hughes: How can the hon. Lady claim justification for saying that increasing child benefit does not help those on the lowest incomes on the ground that income support is automatically adjusted to take account of any increase? The Government are responsible for the regulations stating how much money people can keep. It is the Minister's responsibility and nobody else's if child benefit does not help those at the lower end of the scale.

Mrs. Shephard: The hon. Gentleman's intervention makes absolutely no difference to the point that I was making. Increasing child benefit across the board would benefit a great number of families who do not need that help, but targeting resources, as we have done, has increased help to less well-off families.

Ms. Armstrong: Has the hon. Lady read the report of the Social Services Select Committee about the impact of Government policy on the poorest families? Has she taken into account the problems that Government policies have caused to those on marginal tax rates who are doing much worse? Child benefit is the one benefit that would have targeted services to children and given them the livelihood that we know they need and deserve.

Mrs. Shephard: Obviously, I have read the Select Committee report. The fact that I am making a point about targeting clearly implies the Government's recognition that some families have not done so well as others. As the hon. Lady will know, there has been a distinct improvement in the interaction of tax and social security benefits.
Concern has been expressed about lone parents who have a particularly difficult time bringing up their children. Special provision is made for lone parents within the social security system. Unlike their counterparts in many European countries, if they are on income support they can choose whether to work and to do whatever is in their children's best interests. Many wish to work and about one third of all family credit recipients are lone parents. They receive the same rate credit as a couple, and one-parent benefit is disregarded in the calculation of family credit. The most lasting and worthwhile contribution that the Government can make to lone parents and their children, who we all agree may be vulnerable, is to ensure that the absent parent, usually the father, makes a realistic contribution to the maintenance of the children. The Government are doing that through their review of


maintenance and the across-the-board review involving the Lord Chancellor's Department, the Home Office, the measures introduced in the Social Security Bill and the administrative measures which are already in force in our benefits offices.
Mention has been made of housing and homeless young people. As I have said a number of times in the House, there is no need for 16 and 17-year-olds to be without an income. I am astonished that Opposition Members should seek in any way to encourage young people to go straight from school into the benefit culture. The whole point of the change made by the Government was to discourage such a trend. We have made many adjustments to the interaction of YTS and income support in response to points made by voluntary bodies. We are also tackling in particular the problem of families forced to live in bed-and-breakfast hotels. It is clearly wrong that such accommodation should be used for families except in an emergency or for very short periods and that is why we shall inject £250 million over the next two years into schemes in London and the south-east aimed at reducing that need. Clearly, every effort must be made to reduce the tragedy of young people leaving home or care to end up walking the streets of London. We are looking closely at how our policies work together with a view to ensuring that appropriate assistance is available, and further announcements will be made shortly.
The Government have over the past decade consistently pursued a range of policies across Departments to improve and foster the welfare of children, in the firm belief that the family is the foundation of our society. Basic to that belief have been our economic achievements, which have improved the prosperity of the majority of families and have enabled us to help families who are less fortunate. The Children Act 1989 is the most comprehensive child care legislation ever enacted by Parliament. There have been significant increases in spending on education for children of statutory school age and the under-fives. We have increased spending on the family through social security benefits by more than a quarter in the past decade to nearly £10 billion. The Labour Government's shameful record shows that they cut that help by nearly 10 per cent. during their period of power. Those achievements are real and practical and they are happening, and I ask hon. Members to reject the motion.

Dr. John Reid: The hon. Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman) and one or two other Conservative Members said that it was a disgrace that a debate on the welfare of children had been reduced to half a day. That was both right and wrong. It was certainly never planned as anything more than a half-day's debate. I agree, however, that it is a disgrace that in 11 years of this Conservative Government the first debate on the general welfare of children had to be initiated by the Opposition, not the Government.
We have heard many proud boasts, but as we approach the last decade of the 20th century we now lag behind every other comparable modern democracy in the treatment of our young people from cradle to college. The hon. Members for Lancaster and for Southport (Mr. Fearn), my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) and others mentioned child poverty and the Minister responded—it was the only part of the debate to

which she responded. There are more than 12 million children in Great Britain. For many—indeed, most—childhood is a happy and a secure time, but for millions, unfortunately, it is other than that. As we enter the last decade of this century, it is a tragic fact that almost 75 per cent. of families on benefit, many with young children, now have to borrow to make ends meet, that 56 per cent. cannot meet their bills on time and that over half have to borrow for large expenses or have fallen behind with debt repayments. We discovered recently in a pamphlet issued by Conservative central office that much of this poverty is "self-induced"—once again, a lecture from those who constantly lecture the shoeless of the world to pull themselves up by their bootstraps. That poverty is not self-induced, but it is often Government produced.
The Government do not need a crystal ball to see where their policies are leading. It is in their own books and those of others. A Policy Studies Institute survey has shown hat 50 per cent. of couples on benefit run out of money halfway through every week and that 60 per cent. of them lack a complete standard set of clothing—not a Picasso or a Porsche, but a basic decent standard set of clothing. [Interruption.] The reaction of Conservative Members does not surprise me. The poverty of people has always been a laughing matter for others in this society.
A MORI survey showed that 3 million people with children in their households are unable to heat their homes. The horrific impressions created by those independent figures are confirmed by the Government's figures, yet tonight we heard the usual lecture from the Minister, who told us that these factors are all relative. We constantly hear that poverty is relative. There is nothing like a philosophical discussion on poverty among those who have never suffered it. This shows, because in the same breath the Minister proudly boasted to us of the percentage increase in benefits available.
The Government may have missed something—the elementary point that percentages are also a relative term. One hundred per cent. of nothing is nothing. Even where the benefit targets are reached—often they are not—the benefits allowable for a young child do not meet even the minimum weekly costs of maintaining that child. According to objective observers, the minimum estimated cost of providing for a two-year-old child for a week is £12·17. The Government's income support allowance for that child is £11·75. The minimum estimated cost for providing for an eight-year-old is £16·82, but the Government's income support allowance is still £11·75. What kind of Government refuse to provide no more than 70 per cent. of the minimum cost for even the poorest families to raise an eight-year-old child? We must also bear in mind that all those benefits are now means tested.
The Government have targeted for gradual abolition the one universal, most effective and most important instrument for the alleviation of child poverty—child benefit. The Under-Secretary referred to the abolition of the uprating of benefit in a euphemism to which we have become used. She referred to it as last year's uprating exercise—an innovation for this Government. There have been three uprating exercises, but no uprating. Labour will restore those cuts in child benefit because that is right, just and long overdue.

Mr.Geoffrey Dickens (Littleborough and Saddlesworth): Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Dr. Reid: I am afraid that I am restricted by the time. The Under-Secretary gave way several times, largely because she did not respond to the debate. I am trying to do that.
I must disappoint the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Hicks) on the question of child care and education. The United Kingdom has one of the worst records in Europe of state provision of child care. Despite the references made by the Minister for Health to provision by the voluntary sector, only Ireland and Luxembourg are worse in their state provision for children aged two and under and only Portugal is worse than us in the provision for three and four-year-olds.
Of course we welcome the tax concessions made in the last Budget for workplace nursery schemes. Hon. Members on both sides of the House have been urging that for a long time. However, the Government should be under no illusions. The number of workplace nurseries is extremely small at the moment. Last year the Workplace Nurseries Campaign reported that there were only about 100 such nurseries in Great Britain, and only about 20 of those are provided by the much-vaunted private sector. More importantly, the care of children is too important to be treated merely as an adjunct to the flows and ebbs of the labour market. Child care provision is a litmus test of a modern civilised society. It should be a right in itself, not merely a means of ensuring a supply of female workers.
Almost half a century after the establishment of the National Health Service, social class still determines the chances of a child's survival. The Minister for Health referred to surveys and to falling infant mortality rates.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: The standard of health care is determined by where someone lives. In Lancashire the average expectation of life is two years below the national average. However, in Lancaster it is a year above that. It depends on where one lives, as does the standard of education. It does not depend on social class.

Dr. Reid: To some extent it depends on where one lives, but to a much greater extent it depends on how one lives, and that includes housing and health. None of the Government's propaganda can cover up the overriding statistic that in the mid-1980s, 40 years after the formation of the NHS, babies of fathers in unskilled jobs were twice as likely to be stillborn or to die within their first year as babies of professional fathers.
The hon. Member for Lancaster made much of the pro-life movement. Life does not end at birth. If all British children, irrespective of class and social circumstances, enjoyed the same chances of survival, between 2,500 and 3,000 young lives would be saved in Britain every year. It is a scandal that they are not.

Mr. Dickens: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Dr. Reid: Time is restricted, and I am trying to reply to the debate.
A lack of education in parenthood and pre-parenthood and an overstretched and underfunded National Health Service and deprived housing and social conditions contribute to the problem. I do not claim that there is a simple solution. However, the reality is that there is a direct link between deprived social conditions and ill health among children. One of the most deprived conditions leading to ill health is homelessness.
Hon. Members have heard that, of more than 122,600 homeless households in priority need in Britain, 18,000 had dependent children, while another 17,000 households contained a member of the family who was expecting a child. Eighty per cent. of those homeless households involved children or expected children. For older children the latest estimate suggests that 150,000 16 to 19-year-olds experience homelessness each year, yet the Government cannot even tell us the number of homeless children on the streets of the major city of Britain.
When we ask the Government for statistics on missing children they tell us to go to the Children's Society. When we ask them for statistics on the number of illegally employed children they ask us to seek information from the Low Pay Unit. When we ask them how many children are left in the streets of London they tell us to phone the Salvation Army. It is not just that the Government are ignorant of the facts; they are woefully ignorant of the facts and will do nothing about it. They have done nothing about implementing the Employment of Children Act 1973, yet we know that about 80 per cent. of children's employment is now illegal.
We have heard the figure of 98,000 missing children. We are not pretending that every instance results in a child being permanently missing, but we are saying that 50 per cent. of runaway children go missing more than once, 7 per cent. are estimated to have engaged in prostitution, and 20 per cent. are reckoned to be involved in drug abuse. It is an absolute shame that the Government cannot even tell us how many children are missing in any month and must refer us to the voluntary sector.
Child abuse has been well covered tonight by my hon. Friends the Members for Wakefield, for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mrs. Golding) and for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody). No matter how dreadful, how distasteful and how horrific, child abuse must occupy our minds. Again, we do not suggest that there are easy solutions. Nevertheless, we need to save the most vulnerable children.
We do not pit families against children, but we assert that there are many circumstances in which responsibility must fall on the Government because the families of abused children have already failed them. With the Children Act, we have seen the acceptance of parental responsibility. When parental responsibility has failed, we, on behalf of society, must act. The Children Act was welcomed by the Opposition and we fully supported many of its aspects. But how can we expect the Prime Minister or the Government to take on board society's responsibility when we have a Prime Minister who, 60,000 years after the first settlements in the Mesopotamian valley, still does not believe that society exists, far less has a responsibility?
Reference has been made to the convention on the rights of the child. Why were we given no timetable for ratification, no information on 1992 and its effects on the employment of labour, and no indication of moneys being allocated to road safety? Of course we support and admire the voluntary sector, but, above all, the voluntary sector needs a Government who are committed to partnership in the protection of children.
Hon. Members pride themselves on being a representative assembly. We represent some of the most vulnerable, disadvantaged sections of the community. We have men and women—too few of the latter. Our membership includes disabled people, some of whom speak with great


experience and knowledge of the disadvantages faced by the disabled. We have our fair share of old-age pensioners. Some would say that we have our fair share of the unemployed as well——

Mr. Dickens: rose——[ Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Dr. Reid: But there is one group in this country that has no voice and no vote. Children are the hope of the country and the backbone of the future of our country. The generations to come will judge that the Government have been lacking in their protection of our children.

Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—

The House divided: Ayes 197, Noes 288.

Division No. 225]
[10 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Dobson, Frank


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
Doran, Frank


Allen, Graham
Duffy, A. E. P.


Alton, David
Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth


Anderson, Donald
Eadie, Alexander


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Evans, John (St Helens N)


Armstrong, Hilary
Fatchett, Derek


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Fearn, Ronald


Ashton, Joe
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)


Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)
Fisher, Mark


Barron, Kevin
Flannery, Martin


Beckett, Margaret
Flynn, Paul


Bell, Stuart
Foot, Rt Hon Michael


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Foster, Derek


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
Fraser, John


Bidwell, Sydney
Fyfe, Maria


Blair, Tony
Galloway, George


Blunkett, David
Garrett, John (Norwich South)


Boateng, Paul
George, Bruce


Boyes, Roland
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John


Bradley, Keith
Godman, Dr Norman A.


Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)
Golding, Mrs Llin


Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
Gordon, Mildred


Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)
Gould, Bryan


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Graham, Thomas


Buckley, George J.
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Caborn, Richard
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Callaghan, Jim
Grocott, Bruce


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Harman, Ms Harriet


Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Heal, Mrs Sylvia


Canavan, Dennis
Henderson, Doug


Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)
Hinchliffe, David


Carr, Mike
Hoey, Ms Kate (Vauxhall)


Cartwright, John
Home Robertson, John


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Hood, Jimmy


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Clay, Bob
Howells, Geraint


Clelland, David
Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Hoyle, Doug


Cohen, Harry
Hughes, John (Coventry NE)


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Corbett, Robin
Illsley, Eric


Corbyn, Jeremy
Ingram, Adam


Cousins, Jim
Janner, Greville


Crowther, Stan
Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)


Cryer, Bob
Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)


Cummings, John
Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Kirkwood, Archy


Cunningham, Dr John
Leadbitter, Ted


Dalyell, Tam
Lestor, Joan (Eccles)


Darling, Alistair
Lewis, Terry


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Litherland, Robert


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Livingstone, Ken


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)
Livsey, Richard


Dewar, Donald
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Dixon, Don
Lofthouse, Geoffrey





Loyden, Eddie
Reid, Dr John


McAllion, John
Richardson, Jo


McAvoy, Thomas
Robertson, George


McCartney, Ian
Robinson, Geoffrey


Macdonald, Calum A.
Rogers, Allan


McKelvey, William
Rowlands, Ted


McLeish, Henry
Ruddock, Joan


McNamara, Kevin
Salmond, Alex


McWilliam, John
Sedgemore, Brian


Madden, Max
Sheerman, Barry


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Short, Clare


Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)
Skinner, Dennis


Martlew, Eric
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Maxton, John
Smith, C. (Isl'ton &amp; F'bury)


Meacher, Michael
Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)


Meale, Alan
Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)


Michael, Alun
Snape, Peter


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Spearing, Nigel


Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)
Steinberg, Gerry


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Stott, Roger


Morley, Elliot
Straw, Jack


Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Mowlam, Marjorie
Turner, Dennis


Mullin, Chris
Wallace, James


Murphy, Paul
Walley, Joan


Nellist, Dave
Wareing, Robert N.


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)


O'Brien, William
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Wigley, Dafydd


Owen, Rt Hon Dr David
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


Patchett, Terry
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


Pendry, Tom
Wilson, Brian


Pike, Peter L.
Winnick, David


Powell, Ray (Ogmore)
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Prescott, John
Worthington, Tony


Primarolo, Dawn
Wray, Jimmy


Quin, Ms Joyce



Radice, Giles
Tellers for the Ayes:


Randall, Stuart
Mr. Allen McKay and Mr. Martyn Jones.


Redmond, Martin



Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn





NOES


Adley, Robert
Bright, Graham


Aitken, Jonathan
Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)


Alexander, Richard
Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Buck, Sir Antony


Amess, David
Budgen, Nicholas


Amos, Alan
Burns, Simon


Arbuthnot, James
Burt, Alistair


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Butterfill, John


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Carlisle, John, (Luton N)


Ashby, David
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)


Aspinwall, Jack
Carrington, Matthew


Atkins, Robert
Carttiss, Michael


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Cash, William


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Channon, Rt Hon Paul


Baldry, Tony
Chapman, Sydney


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Chope, Christopher


Batiste, Spencer
Churchill, Mr


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Clark, Hon Alan (Plym'th S'n)


Bellingham, Henry
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)


Bendall, Vivian
Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)


Benyon, W.
Colvin, Michael


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Conway, Derek


Body, Sir Richard
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Cope, Rt Hon John


Boswell, Tim
Cormack, Patrick


Bottomley, Peter
Couchman, James


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Cran, James


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Critchley, Julian


Bowis, John
Currie, Mrs Edwina


Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes
Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Day, Stephen


Brazier, Julian
Devlin, Tim






Dickens, Geoffrey
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Dicks, Terry
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Dorrell, Stephen
Jones, Robert B (Herts W)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Dover, Den
Key, Robert


Dunn, Bob
Kilfedder, James


Dykes, Hugh
King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)


Eggar, Tim
Kirkhope, Timothy


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)
Knapman, Roger


Evennett, David
Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)


Fallon, Michael
Knowles, Michael


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Knox, David


Fishburn, John Dudley
Lamont, Rt Hon Norman


Fookes, Dame Janet
Lang, Ian


Forman, Nigel
Latham, Michael


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Lawrence, Ivan


Forth, Eric
Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Lee, John (Pendle)


Fox, Sir Marcus
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)


Franks, Cecil
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)


French, Douglas
Lilley, Peter


Gale, Roger
Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Gill, Christopher
Luce, Rt Hon Richard


Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Glyn, Dr Sir Alan
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Goodhart, Sir Philip
MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)


Goodlad, Alastair
Maclean, David


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick


Gorst, John
Madel, David


Gow, Ian
Major, Rt Hon John


Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)
Malins, Humfrey


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Mans, Keith


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Maples, John


Gregory, Conal
Marlow, Tony


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Ground, Patrick
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)


Grylls, Michael
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Hague, William
Mates, Michael


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Hampson, Dr Keith
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Hanley, Jeremy
Mellor, David


Hannam, John
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')
Miller, Sir Hal


Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)
Mills, Iain


Harris, David
Miscampbell, Norman


Hawkins, Christopher
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Hayes, Jerry
Mitchell, Sir David


Hayward, Robert
Monro, Sir Hector


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)
Moore, Rt Hon John


Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)
Morris, M (N'hampton S)


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Morrison, Sir Charles


Hind, Kenneth
Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Moss, Malcolm


Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)
Moynihan, Hon Colin


Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)
Neale, Gerrard


Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)
Nelson, Anthony


Hunt, David (Wirral W)
Neubert, Michael


Hunter, Andrew
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Irvine, Michael
Nicholls, Patrick


Irving, Sir Charles
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Jack, Michael
Norris, Steve


Jackson, Robert
Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley


Janman, Tim
Oppenheim, Phillip





Page, Richard
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Paice, James
Sumberg, David


Patnick, Irvine
Summerson, Hugo


Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Pawsey, James
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Porter, Barry (Wirral S)
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Porter, David (Waveney)
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Price, Sir David
Temple-Morris, Peter


Raffan, Keith
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


Renton, Rt Hon Tim
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Riddick, Graham
Thorne, Neil


Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas
Thornton, Malcolm


Ridsdale, Sir Julian
Thurnham, Peter


Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Rossi, Sir Hugh
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Rost, Peter
Tracey, Richard


Rowe, Andrew
Tredinnick, David


Rumbold, Mrs Angela
Twinn, Dr Ian


Ryder, Richard
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Sackville, Hon Tom
Viggers, Peter


Sainsbury, Hon Tim
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Sayeed, Jonathan
Walden, George


Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas
Walker, Rt Hon P. (Wcester)


Shaw, David (Dover)
Waller, Gary


Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')
Watts, John


Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)
Wells, Bowen


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Wheeler, Sir John


Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)
Whitney, Ray


Sims, Roger
Widdecombe, Ann


Skeet, Sir Trevor
Wiggin, Jerry


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Wilshire, David


Soames, Hon Nicholas
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Speller, Tony
Winterton, Nicholas


Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)
Wolfson, Mark


Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Wood, Timothy


Squire, Robin
Woodcock, Dr. Mike


Stanbrook, Ivor
Yeo, Tim


Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Steen, Anthony
Younger, Rt Hon George


Stern, Michael



Stevens, Lewis
Tellers for the Noes:


Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)
Mr. Tony Durant and Mr. David Lightbown.


Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

Question accordingly negatived.

Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 30 (Questions on amendments), and agreed to.

Mr. Speaker: forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House welcomes the major programme of work in the child care and child protection field which the Government are overseeing and undertaking in co-operation with local government and the voluntary sector, backed up by the Children Act 1989, which will establish an improved court system for children and a new balance between public support of children within their families and action to protect children from abuse and neglect, and families from unwarranted intrusion by the state; and welcomes other initiatives such as the reformed system of social security which targets help more effectively on the least well off among families with children.

Teachers' Pay and Conditions

The Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. John MacGregor): I beg to move,
That the draft Education (School Teachers' Pay and Conditions) Order 1990, which was laid before this House on 11 th May, be approved.[ Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. Will those hon. Members not remaining for the debate please leave quietly?

Mr. MacGregor: The order will give effect to the school teachers' pay and conditions document 1990, which sets out the rates of pay and conditions of service to apply in state schools in 1990
91.
The publication of the 1990 pay and conditions document will complete a process that began in September 1989, when I asked the interim advisory committee to advise on teachers' pay in 1990–91. As the House knows, apart from asking it to consider what general pay increase should be given to teachers, I gave it more specific remits: to look especially at ways of further increasing flexibility within the pay system, improving the career structure and helping local education authorities to tackle geographical and subject teacher shortages—giving special consideration to the problems in London—and to review specifically the pay of heads and deputies.
In my view, the committee has fulfilled its remit admirably and produced the third in what has been a series of excellent reports. The committee endorsed the thinking underlying the present pay structure—[Interruption]

Mr. Speaker: Order. I ask hon. Members either to listen to the debate or to continue their conversations outside the Chamber.

Mr. MacGregor: The committee endorsed the thinking underlying the present pay structure, and made recommendations intended to carry it even further into practice. It concluded that, although the recent improvements to the pay structure had all been in the right direction, more needed to be done to provide LEAs and governing bodies with sufficient flexibility to tackle the needs of individual schools, to reward responsibility and high performance, to respond to changing circumstances and to provide attractive career prospects for able and ambitious teachers, whether they want to stay in the classroom or prefer to move to senior management positions.
The interim advisory committee made far-reaching proposals for change: those are the words that it used, and I agree. Its report reaffirmed the value and importance of incentive allowances, and boosted their number and value. In addition, however, it proposed that LEAs and governing bodies should be able to enhance the standard incremental pay of individual teachers on the main scale on an annual basis, and that it should be possible to adopt and use a local extension of the main scale to enhance the pay of teachers on the top of the scale. It also clearly identified the need for greater recognition of differences in the circumstances of schools, and in the performance of individuals, in the way in which heads and deputies are paid. It proposed that the present system of spot salaries should be replaced by a system of range pay.
I received the report on 30 January, and announced on 1 February that I proposed to accept its recommendations in full——

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is desirable for county councils such as Lancashire to spend less on administration and to devote more to giving incentive payments to teachers, as my right hon. Friend and the advisory committee recommend?

Mr. MacGregor: I shall be commenting on that later. Under local management of schools, there is greater flexibility for schools to do that. Clearly, making full use of what is available as a result of the report is an important priority for LEAs.
I accept the report's recommendations in full, but decided to stage their introduction in the same way as for the review body groups, because of affordability within public expenditure totals for this year. It is worth noting, however, that by far the major part of the proposals will be implemented on 1 April—if the order is approved tonight and in another place—and some at the beginning of September. They will all be implemented in full from 1 January 1991. The overall cost in 1990–91 will be £620 million, and would be £733 million in a full year.
The speed with which I accepted the report clearly demonstrated my approval of the committee's whole approach and the Government's commitment to tackling with determination the issues of teachers' pay and supply. The speed with which we have moved since in terms of the consultation process and bringing the order before the House as quickly as we could shows that we are also keen to get the changes legitimised and in place for all teachers as quickly as possible. I know that some local education authorities are paying the new rates at the moment in the hope and assumption that the order will go through.
Section 3 of the Teachers' Pay and Conditions Act 1987 requires consultations with interested parties before the proposals can be implemented. I considered carefully the points made to me by the teacher unions and the employers, orally and in writing, and as a result have made a number of further minor modifications to the interim advisory committee recommendations that are incorporated in the draft document which accompanies the draft order.
They include placing certain deputy heads on a point higher on the new pay spine, which will give some 4,000 deputies an extra £300 on 1 January. The pay ranges for heads and deputies in small schools will be extended by one point. The six months qualifying service that entitles part-time teachers and teachers on short notice contracts to increments must be within one year, but will not now need to be continuous. I have accepted all those points in response to the recommendations made to me.
My acceptance of the interim advisory committee's recommendations means that teachers will receive substantial pay increases. By January 1991, heads and deputies will have seen their pay rise by up to 12·2 per cent. since March 1990. This will mean an increase of some £3,000 for a typical secondary head and £2,000 for a typical primary head. From 1 January, under the new system of range pay, local education authorities and governing bodies will have flexibility to recognise the demands of the job and the performance of the individual in the way in which they pay heads and deputies.
I believe that the changes to general salary grades have been sensitively handled by the committee and skilfully targeted. For new teachers, salaries will increase by up to 11·8 per cent. A good honours graduate will start on £10,503, or £12,003 in inner London. Teachers on the top of the scale will receive 8·9 per cent. There will be a further 14,400 new incentive allowances, bringing the total to 189,000 in primary and secondary schools. The value of the four higher rate incentive allowances will increase by 17 per cent.
That is not all. From 1 January, local education authorities and governing bodies will be able to award an incremental enhancement of up to £999 to any classroom teacher, provided that the value of the next incremental point is not exceeded. Local education authorities will be able to put in place local extensions to the standard scale and thereby raise the top point from £16,000 to £18,000. Overall, teachers will, on average, have seen an increase in their pay of 50 per cent. since March 1986 as soon as the proposals are fully in operation.
The improvements, used imaginatively and effectively, will mean better career prospects for good teachers, better matching of rewards with contribution and greatly enhanced scope for effective local decision taking. They will offer better rewards for the teacher in mid-career to whose needs the Select Committee on Education, Science and Arts recently drew attention.

Mr. Harry Greenway: It is impossible to hear the Secretary of State say that teachers' pay has increased by 50 per cent. since 1986 without expressing real admiration. I am bound to think back to the years 1974 to 1979. In 1974, I received the Houghton award, which the Labour party has trumpeted so often as so marvellous, but it was lost within almost a year because of 27 per cent. inflation. We were all worse off in 1979 than we were in 1974 when Labour took office.

Mr. MacGregor: My hon. Friend speaks from knowledge and personal experience, and he is quite right. That compares with an increase in real terms of about 30 per cent. for teachers under this Government.
The improvements will also give local education authorities and governors much more flexibility to respond effectively to local recruitment and retention problems. In inner London, where the problems in some parts are especially acute, there will also be a new discretionary pay settlement of £750. I recognise, as did the committee, that the introduction of a more flexible pay system places particular responsibilities on local decision takers. There will sometimes be difficult choices to be made, but that is in the nature of a more local and flexible system. If local management is about anything it is about the targeting of resources where they are most needed and will do most good. I said that earlier, in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman). It is the negation of good management to share out additional flexibilities according to Buggin's turn, and I hope that governing bodies and head teachers will resist such pressures and will not do that.
Pay flexibility and pay differentiation have a key role to play in improving morale and in tackling specific and local shortages. The new flexibilities will greatly increase the

capacity for local management to manage. They represent a real step forward in our ability to create and sustain the kind of teaching force that we need for the future.
I am glad to have the opportunity to pay tribute once again to the interim advisory committee for the clarity of its analyses and the force of its recommendation in pointing the way ahead. I am most grateful to Lord Chilver and the members of his committee, not only for the time and care that they devoted to their tasks, but for the skilful and clear-sighted way in which they assessed the evidence, analysed the issues and produced carefully worked out recommendations. It is a tribute to the committee that many teachers have told me that they greatly value the work that it carried out and think that it might not be possible to get such a good career and pay structure in place without the committee's work.

Mr. Patrick Thompson: My right hon. Friend is right to pay tribute to the excellent work of the interim advisory committee. As a serving teacher for many years at the time when the Burnham committee used to operate, may I ask my right hon. Friend whether he agrees that that system did not work well for the teaching profession? The new system and that which replaces it will work a great deal better. My right hon. Friend is right to pay tribute to the members of the committee for their imagination and for the kind of report that they have produced.

Mr. MacGregor: I agree. There is widespread acceptance of the view that the Burnham committee did not work. I agree that the interim advisory committee has produced a much better structure and in so doing has skilfully carried out the remit that we gave it. The committee and the Government saw eye to eye on the actual needs, and I am grateful to the committee for that.
I shall now turn to the future pay machinery. Last December, in the debate on the Teachers' Pay and Conditions Act 1987 (Continuation) Order 1989, I referred to the discussions that I had recently completed with the teacher unions and employers on new pay machinery. In the light of those discussions, I announced on 26 April my proposals for new permanent negotiating machinery. I have today held the last of a series of constructive meetings with unions and employers. However, it is clear from the meeting that there is still a great deal of disagreement about the way forward. I shall now consider carefully the best way forward in the light of the differing views expressed to me. It remains my aim to introduce legislation early in the next Session of Parliament.
The order clearly sets out the Government's position. We have made clear the changes in structure that we have been putting in place and are further addressing. They are major advances in a single year. What do we get from the Opposition? Since the Labour party is making such play of its new policy document, it is legitimate to look to that to see what Labour has to say. The document is not very illuminating. It says:
As resources allow, we will ensure that teachers who make a long-term commitment to their profession are properly rewarded.
Precisely what does that mean? The whole point of the structural changes that we are making is to give greater rewards to those who make a long-term commitment, who take the key jobs and the greater responsibilities and who


demonstrate classroom excellence. That is the thrust of what I am saying and what the committee has been recommending.
I put two questions to the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw). First, what different structural changes——

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: The hon. Member is not listening to my right hon. Friend.

Mr. MacGregor: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Her intervention has made the hon. Gentleman concentrate.
First, what different——

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: The hon. Member for Blackburn is still not listening.

Mr. MacGregor: The hon. Gentleman is clearly anxious not to listen.
First, what different structural changes is he proposing? We have been specific and we look to see whether the hon. Gentleman is. Secondly, is he promising anything—I repeat, anything—in terms of extra money? Again, we look to him to be specific. If he is not promising anything in terms of extra money, we shall rightly conclude that his speech is meaningless and that he is only offering never, never land.
If the Opposition are to criticise the measures that we are putting before the House, no one will pay any attention to what they say unless we have answers to the questions that I have posed. I look forward to the response of the hon. Member for Blackburn. I ask the House to approve the order so that we can ensure that teachers have the 1990–91 pay increases which I have recommended.

Mr. Jack Straw: Our education system faces an unprecedented crisis. According to the report of the senior chief inspector of schools which was published in February, one third of our children—over 2 million—are getting a "raw deal" from the education system over which the Government have presided for 11 years. Two thirds of all pupils in secondary schools, according to the report, have to learn in unsuitable accommodation. We are told that only just less than half the problems were
adversely and seriously affecting the quality of work in one way or another.
Research conducted by the National Foundation for Educational Research for The Mail on Sunday concluded that the education system was in danger of collapse, with parents
providing a support system of nearly £40 million for primary schools.
The report states that without that many primary schools could not keep going. It tells us that
most of the money is being used to fund the Government's new National Curriculum. One third of all money spent in schools on hooks and equipment comes from parents. Nearly one sixth of all schools surveyed are raising more money from parents than they receive from the State. A sixth are levying 'voluntary' contributions from parents.
Central to the near collapse—according to The Mail on Sunday—lies the condition of the teaching service. Never has morale in the service been lower. Never have fewer people wanted to train to teach. Never have so many teachers wanted to leave the profession. Never has the service been so overburdened with meretricious, divisive and ill-thought-out changes such as local management of schools and an inflexible national curriculum. Never has

there been a Government whose conduct of the education service has been so prejudiced and incompetent that it has reduced a once fine service to the point of near collapse.
The extent of the crisis in teacher recruitment, retention and morale is terrifying. The proportion of graduates entering teaching across the country has halved in eight years from 8 per cent. to 4 per cent. At Cambridge university, the number of graduates entering teacher training has halved in a year. In 1988, 83 graduates in Cambridge took up teacher training. There were only 45 last year.

Mr. James Pawsey: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that this evening the Opposition will vote against a measure that is worth £733 million to teachers? Will he tell the House what he would do were he in office? Will he tell us something about the contents of the Labour party's policy document?

Mr. Straw: Yes, I will tell the House, and I shall come to that point in my own time. I understand why Conservative Members will not acknowledge the extent of the crisis in education that they have produced, but they had better understand the near collapse, in the words of The Mail on Sunday, to which have they brought the education service.

Mr. Nicholas Bennett: rose——

Mr. Straw: No, I will not give way to the hon. Gentleman. I am giving the hon. Gentleman and other Conservative Members a few facts about the extent of that collapse and about the problems——

Mr. MacGregor: Will the hon. Gentleman allow me to intervene?

Mr. Straw: I will, in a moment. I am giving the facts about the problems confronting teacher training institutions in recruiting decent graduates and other entrants.
According to the 2 May issue of The Economist, the London Institute of Education—the largest training institution in the country—managed to make only 17 offers for the 65 available places in mathematics; only eight offers for 20 places in economics; and 24 offers for 65 places in the sciences. As the Select Committee pointed out, 40 per cent. of those who enter teacher training fail to go into the profession even after four years, and half of those who do leave it within five years.
I will give way now to the Secretary of State, and perhaps he will tell the House whether he believes that those figures are a satisfactory account of his stewardship of the education service.

Mr. MacGregor: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the figure of £40 million of parental support that he gave—if it is correct—is less than 1 per cent. of the total that the Government and local education authorities are putting into primary schools? How can he possibly describe that as near collapse?

Mr. Straw: The Secretary of State's comment only shows how ignorant he is of the state of Britain's schools. The report to which I referred was written not by the Labour party but by the National Foundation for Educational Research for a Conservative newspaper, The Mail on Sunday. If the Secretary of State does not believe that report, he had better look at previous reports of the senior chief inspector, who pointed out in last year's report


that many schools receive more by way of income from parents than by way of capitation for books and equipment from local education authorities.

Mr. Robert Key: That is a wonderful thing.

Mr. Straw: That situation is the responsibility of the present Government.

Mr. Bruce Grocott: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. A Conservative Member described the increasing parental contribution to the essential needs of schoolchildren as "wonderful". Is it not in order for the House to know which Conservative Member made that remark?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Mr. Straw. [ Laughter.]

Mr. Straw: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman who made that remark will admit to it, if he has the guts to do SO.
It is increasingly difficult to recruit both the number and quality of entrants required to teacher training colleges.

Mr. Key: It was indeed I who said that it is wonderful that parents are contributing to schools.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Confession time is over. That is sufficient. Let us return to the debate.

Mr. Straw: This is only a short debate, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I know that many hon. Members in all parts of the House want to contribute. I have already given way twice, so I intend to proceed as quickly as possible.
The latest report of the interim advisory committee says that morale is even lower than was noted in its reports of the previous two years. The committee noted that far more teachers are compelled to take second jobs—having to moonlight—than ever before. It also said that teachers' commitment to their job is closer to breaking point.
Faced with that crisis in our schools, with the culpable neglect of school buildings, with the neglect of expenditure on equipment and books, and above all with a gratuitous neglect of the education of our children, what is the Government's response? Is it to recognise the nature of the crisis? Is it to start to reward teachers properly? No—it is none of those things. It is to cut the real pay of teachers. Conservative Members had better recognise that by voting for the order they will be voting for a real terms cut in the pay of teachers. The authority for that comes not from me, but from the interim advisory committee report [HON. MEMBERS: "Rubbish".]
When Conservative Members cry, "Rubbish", it only illustrates the level of their ignorance about the state of the service and about the teachers' pay for which they are voting.
In paragraph 4(3), the interim advisory committee said that even if inflation were to fall back to 7·5 per cent.—it is two percentage points above that—at the end of the financial year, as forecast by the Government, the majority of teachers will be worse off than a year previously, whatever happens in 1990–91. The order will increase the total pay bill by only 7·9 per cent. during the next year. Inflation is running at 9·4 per cent. Even Conservative

Members, with their inadequate education, will understand by the comparison of those two figures that a real cut in pay will result from the order.
The Secretary of State has made much play of the suggestion that he is implementing the report in full. That is incorrect. He is delaying implementation of an inadequate report. He has said almost nothing about the fact that he is phasing in its implementation. His predecessor did not do that with the two previous reports.
The Secretary of State did not mention the fact that the additional cost of the report, over the cash limit of £600 million—an extra £20 million—will be borne, according to an answer which he gave me on 7 March, entirely by local education authorities, with the Government paying not a penny piece towards it. That was the nature of his answer. Perhaps the Secretary of State would like to explain how, if he is accepting the report, he does not accept responsibility for paying for the whole of it. We judge the Government by their deeds, not by the vacuity of their words.
The Secretary of State also did not address the fact that the cash limit was wholly inadequate. He asked me what we would have done. We would have ensured that there were negotiations between teachers and employers. Secondly, if we had inherited an interim advisory committee, or some such body, we would not have tied its hands or put it in a straitjacket before it started to consider teachers' pay and imposed upon it a prior cash limit of £600 million, which it says is inadequate.
What we would have done, and what the Select Committee recommended by saying that there should be more money for teachers, would be either to have allowed free negotiations between teachers and their employers, or had a review body of this kind, which would make a recommendation to the Government without a prior cash limit. The one absolute guarantee that I give is that we would not have presided at any stage over real cuts in teachers' pay. Teachers know that from our record—from Houghton and from Clegg.
As ever, the Secretary of State produced his ritual incantation of fiddled figures which allege that teachers have never had it so good, and how wonderfully teachers' pay has increased since 1986, when large increases were forced out of the Government after two years of industrial action after their pay had been declining for years.
If the Secretary of State were to examine graphs A and B in the Select Committee report, he would notice two things. First, since 1986, under the wonderful interim advisory committee system teachers' pay has only remained stable in real terms and is now declining in real terms. Secondly, if the Secretary of State examines graph B in the Select Committee's report he will see, above all, how severely teachers' pay has declined, compared with other groups.
It is extraordinary that Conservative Members of Parliament should be so blind to the workings of the labour market in which people make job decisions not just on absolute levels of pay but on what they are likely to get elsewhere.

Mr. Nicholas Bennett: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Straw: No.
I understand why Conservative Members do not want to acknowledge that by means of the order they will be cutting teachers' pay.
No one has ever gone into teaching for the money. In the past, however, teachers expected, and received, remuneration that was more reasonable compared with other groups. They also enjoyed the non-financial rewards of the respect and esteem of the wider community. But during the past 11 years Conservative Ministers and Members of Parliament have systematically insulted and abused teachers; they have undermined public confidence in teachers and their own confidence in themselves.

Mr. Key: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Straw: No.
Conservatives have done that for 10 years. The Secretary of State for Education and Science was put into his job to try to repair the damage caused by his predecessor. Until last week he tried to avoid abusing and insulting teachers, but when he stood up to deliver a keynote address at the National Association of Head Teachers conference last week, half-way through he departed from his carefully prepared text, designed to placate head teachers, and insulted and abused teachers by suggesting that they should regard themselves as small business men and that schools should turn themselves into some kind of corner shop. I hope that the Secretary of State appreciates the damage that he has done to himself in the eyes of head teachers.

Mr. MacGregor: I was there. I saw that many of them undertstood the point that I was making. The hon. Gentleman's misrepresentation of what I said is utterly grotesque. I said that other groups, such as small businesses, which I know well, had to respond to substantial changes by working long hours, taking risks and facing difficulties. That was my point, and it was understood by the audience.

Mr. Straw: That was exactly the point that the Secretary of State made, and it went down like a lead balloon at the NAHT conference. It is crass in the extreme—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"]. I shall tell Conservative Members why it is crass in the extreme to imply that schools can be compared with small businesses. Small businesses face severe difficulties because of the Government's economic policies. More businesses are going bankrupt than has happened for many years. Teachers and parents are suspicious of the Government's motives. They believe that the Government are trying to establish a two-tier system under which market forces will operate, with children being treated like commodities. The Secretary of State's speech to the NAHT conference, as many people have told me, confirmed their suspicions. It is because of those suspicions that support for the Government's education policies has collapsed severely during the past three years while support for Labour's policies has increased.
It is well known that, whatever Ministers may say about the excellence of their administration of the state education system during the past 11 years, it is still not good enough for them to use.

Mr. Key: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Straw: The hon. Gentleman is not a Minister. It may be good enough for other people's children, but it is certainly not good enough for the generality of Ministers' children.

Mr. Key: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is not seeking to mislead the House, but he is doing so. Many Conservative Members, including myself, use their local state schools.

Mr. Straw: As The Sunday Times, another Conservative newspaper, pointed out, the overwhelming majority of Conservative Ministers have sent and continue to send their children to private schools. What reveals the appalling double standards of those Ministers and the Government is that, while forcing down the real pay of teachers in the maintained sector and the budgets of local education authorities which pay those teachers, the Government are increasing the state subsidy to private schools to enable them to pay salaries greatly in excess of those allowed by law to be paid in the maintained sector.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Straw: No.
The clerk to the governors of Dulwich college wrote to parents in March this year explaining why the fees at the school were to be increased to £4,035 per annum. He said:
Education … is labour intensive, and salaries and wages … are increasing at a greater rate than RPI … The importance of attracting and retaining staff of the highest calibre means that proper levels of salary must be paid, also reflecting the high costs of living in the area.
He then confirmed that fees were to be increased to £4,035.
That would be okay if those fees were being paid entirely by parents. But for 277 children at that school the fees are being paid, in whole or in part, by the Government. The Government have agreed to pay those fees without any cavilling. On the one hand the Government are paying fees of £4,035 per pupil to Dulwich college to enable it to pay its teachers much more than the salaries that they could command in the state system, while on the other the Secretary of State has connived at the poll tax capping of Rochdale, Doncaster, Wigan and Calderdale—all authorities that are paying less than £1,800 per pupil per annum.
The education of the nation's children depends above all on the quality and dedication of its teachers. The Government have systematically undermined and under-rewarded teachers while imposing more demands on them. In the debate which preceded this one, the Minister of State for Health said grandiloquently at the beginning of her speech that our children were our future and that we owed them a most sacred trust. That is certainly true, but the Government have broken faith with our teachers and in doing so have broken their trust to the nation's children. We oppose the motion. We want better pay for our teachers because we want a better education for our children.

Mr. James Pawsey: The hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) was even more negative than usual tonight. He made no mention of what his party would do about teachers' pay. He said only that some teachers who made long-term commitments to the profession would be properly rewarded if resources allowed. At no time did the hon. Gentleman say what those resources would be. I hope that those teachers who read our deliberations will take on board the fact that Opposition Members will not put a figure on what they would pay the teaching profession. They have left an enormous vacuum surrounding teachers' pay.
I come to tonight's debate with a feeling of some nostalgia as it is likely to be the last of its kind. The interim advisory committee is soon to be replaced by the new permanent pay negotiating machinery announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. The debate gives us the opportunity to see how teachers' pay has increased under the interim advisory committee. Its recent recommendations would add a total of 9·3 per cent. to the teachers' pay bill in a full year. The cost for 1990–91 will be almost 8 per cent. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said, that means that teachers' pay will have increased by about 50 per cent. since 1986. My hon. Friends will agree that that is a substantial increase in anyone's language.
Despite that substantial increase, I am still far from convinced that teachers' pay accurately reflects their important role in society. The education of our children and young people is of the utmost importance. I remind the House yet again that the overwhelming majority of teachers are dedicated both to their profession and to the children in their charge. That answers the question posed by the hon. Member for Blackburn, who accused us of undermining and denigrating teachers. At no time have we done that.

Mr. Straw: rose——

Mr. Pawsey: I shall give way. We recognise the importance of the teacher in the classroom. Now I give way to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Straw: The hon. Gentleman says that no Conservative Member has ever denigrated teachers. Will he explain why the present Secretary of State for the Environment, when Minister of State, Department of Education and Science, made a speech—which is in the Library—entitled, "Teachers encouraging a yob society"?

Mr. Pawsey: If that quotation is accurate, I think that that was a reference to some of the recent scenes at, for example, teacher conferences, but I shall deal with that point later.
The House will be aware that the reforms introduced by my right hon. and hon. Friends will do a great deal to enhance the quality and standard of state education. We have taken on the great debate which was started by the Opposition. The difference between the two sides is that while they talked about it we have done something about it.

Mr. Robert B. Jones: I would not like my hon. Friend to think that the great debate on educational standards was started by the Opposition. It was started by the Council for Educational Standards.

Mr. Pawsey: I am obliged to my hon. Friend for that correction. I was thinking of the speech by Lord Callaghan in 1976.
The national curriculum, local management of schools and teacher assessment are all added responsibilities with which the teacher force must grapple. It is worth reminding the House that, despite our good intentions, despite our reforms, despite all our legislation, all that will be as nothing if we do not enjoy the full-hearted support and co-operation of the nation's teachers.
I come now to the intervention by the hon. Member for Blackburn. I am interested to see that, so much notice does he take of our debates, he is reading a newspaper.
Teachers are not always their own best advocates. The recent teacher conferences have done little to enhance the esteem in which individual teachers or the reputation of the profession is held. The spectacle of, for example, the general secretary of the National Union of Teachers being howled down by his own militant leftists was disgraceful. Teachers must understand that if they wish to be regarded as a profession and remunerated as a profession, they must act as a profession. The public do not always see them on a par with doctors or architects, because doctors and architects seldom demonstrate with marches, banners and loudspeakers. Other professionals prefer to pursue their grievances more responsibly.
The Government are introducing educational reforms, and there is an argument that perhaps we are progressing more rapidly than some would like. We do not have to look far for the reasons for the reforms. We are anxious that improvements in schooling should be implemented with the least possible delay so that the maximum number of the nation's children can benefit and in the shortest time.
I suspect that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will agree that some of the reforms have been so carefully wrapped in red tape both by the Department of Education and Science and, especially, by local education authorities that the package of reform itself is in danger of being lost. I doubt whether there is a need for so many forms which take up an increasing amount of teacher time. The number of leaflets, pamphlets and booklets produced by the bureaucrats has tended to swamp the profession. It would be helpful if my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State could reduce the weight of paper that is currently submerging the profession. I say that in the clear knowledge that he is already doing something towards that.
I welcome the recommendations of the interim advisory committee and I note that the pay bill will be £733 million more than last year. Incidentally, that is £133 million more than the interim advisory committee recommendation. That figure must reflect the greatest credit on my right hon. Friend. He has persuaded the Treasury to cough up an extra £133 million and that substantial sum reflects the greatest credit on his persuasive abilities.

Mr. John Greenway: Many of us had misgivings about the interim advisory committee three years ago. As my hon. Friend said, this may well be the last debate of this nature. However, does he agree that the


interim advisory committee and the Government have done very well by the teaching profession over those three years?

Mr. Pawsey: I would not quarrel for a moment with my hon. Friend. He is absolutely right. The interim advisory committee has done a splendid job and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State was right to compliment it.
It is worth remembering that, under the interim advisory committee's awards, the starting salary for a good honours graduate will be about £12,000 a year in inner London. The awards will provide increases of at least 20 per cent. for teachers who are not at the top of the main scale. Above all, the committee's awards will be worth on average almost 10·5 per cent. for almost all 60,000 head teachers and their deputies.
The hon. Member for Blackburn clearly and totally misunderstands the problem and he misunderstands the challenge that is being put to head teachers. He seeks to denigrate my right hon. Friend's comments about head teachers and their work. He is wrong to do that. The additional money for head teachers reflects the additional importance of a head teacher's job under the local management of schools proposal.
I support LMS, and I believe that funding should follow the pupil and be pupil led. Pupils of the same age should attract the same resources, irrespective of the school that they attend. Heads are taking on a greater management role. Although that represents something of a departure, it will be a significant step forward.
Surely head teachers must know best what actually happens in their schools. They know who the conscientious teachers are and they know the day-to-day problems. They will be in the best position to do something about them. Therefore, it is only right that the additional management responsibility be recognised in the monthly pay packet.
The hon. Member for Blackburn referred to the considerable concern about teacher shortages. I hope that the interim advisory committee's latest recommendations help to make the teaching profession more attractive to graduates.
Incidentally, it is noteworthy that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has written to the Universities Funding Council asking it to take note of a planned increase in initial teacher training for the next three years. It is just possible that critics will say that planning is one thing and attainment is something else, yet it is fair to remember that recruitment to teacher training courses rose by about 8 per cent. in 1989. Teacher shortages are not all that common. For example, in my county of Warwickshire, the number of teacher vacancies in January last year was 31. In January of this year it was 25. To get those two figures into perspective, that is out of a teacher force of 3,677.
I welcome the statutory instrument and I certainly hope that it will encourage entrance to the teaching profession.

Mr. Martin Flannery: Before Conservative Members start shouting the Opposition down, it is necessary to put the record straight about the interim advisory committee. The Secretary of State always funks doing that. In 1987, his predecessor, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, the right hon. Member for Mole Valley (Mr. Baker), found that normal trade union

and employer negotiations were not working out to the Government's satisfaction. He then did something for which the Government were rightly condemned by the United Nations body, the International Labour Organisation. I have made it clear on many occasions that there would never have been an interim advisory committee if the Government had not refused to engage in proper negotiations with teachers. No other western Government have refused to negotiate with teachers, trade unions and employers.
The Government then hand-picked a committee. It is a farce. There is no negotiating of any kind. That committee was imposed on teachers, and, even though the committee was hand-picked, its recommendations were not accepted by the Government. The Secretary of State is pretending that its recommendations were accepted, but he knows that they were not. He is offering less money than the committee wanted him to offer. The figure is miles behind inflation. A figure of 13·5 per cent. in real terms would be required to return to the 1987 position, and 14 per cent. in real terms would be required to return to the position that obtained in 1974.
When the Government withdrew teachers' negotiating rights—they have still not given them back—they committed an undemocratic action. [Interruption.] No amount of shouting at me can change that fact.
Meanwhile, the situation has become so serious that the Select Committee on Education, Science and Arts recently published one of its most important reports on teacher shortages. A whole section of that report is missing because we could not get it approved by the majority of Tories on the Committee, who prevented our minority report from being released for nearly a year.
The present Chairman is the second one, because the first was hounded out by the Tory majority on the Committee. That is a fact. I nominated the present Chairman, and my colleagues seconded the motion—the Chairman is present; he can tell the House—and they walked out of the room and did not return, even though we were to meet the Minister the next day. There are many things that we did not want in the report and many things that should be in the report but are not.
There is a growing crisis in the recruitment and training of teachers, and it must be taken into account. The problem is national, widespread, and inextricably linked with inadequate salary levels, bad conditions and scarce resources under this Government. [Interruption.] No amount of shouting will change that. I have heard the Secretary of State and his hon. Friends praising the head teachers, but they are talking rubbish. The speech made by Mr. Hart, the general secretary of the National Association of Head Teachers, is the biggest roistering ever given to a Government by the head teachers, who for years have been the darlings of this Government, but who have now completely changed their opinions.
It was Mr. Hart who said that the teacher shortage was a "crisis", approaching a "catastrophe". Everybody that the Select Committee met used the word "crisis". Only one person said that there was no crisis—the senior official of the Department of Education and Science. My hon. Friends who served on the Committee are present and know that to be true, as do Conservative Members who have said the same thing themselves.
One of the three interim advisory committee reports that was praised stated:


Any profession would be justifiably proud of the level of commitment on the part of teachers we have met during our school visits during all 3 years. However, commitment cannot by itself guarantee the success of the current reforms. It needs to be underpinned by far higher morale than we have found. Too many teachers feel that their efforts are under-valued by the Government, the employers, parents, and society generally.
In 1988, the interim advisory committee drew the link between proper professional levels of pay and problems of recruitment, stating:
We are in no doubt that pay levels are the major factor.
The Secretary of State praises the committee but he does not carry out the policies that his own hand-picked committee suggests to put teachers' pay levels right.
Surely it is now clear that teachers know that they are grossly underpaid. Let us have no nonsense about it. They know it and are miserable about it. They are overworked. They have to attend endless meetings, during their lunch hours and after school. They have to be at school earlier than ever before and have to spend endless more hours marking. Their morale is at its lowest ever ebb. The hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett) can laugh and laugh—[ Laughter.] Indeed, he cannot stop laughing, but the reality is that——

Mr. John Marshall: rose——

Mr. Flannery: No, I shall not give way, because there is so little time. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will be called. Indeed, he has received a lot of fame in the past few days on College green—[Interruption.] Well, not about education.
There are vacancies in schools throughout the country. The hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey) must know that he was talking rubbish. What he said is not true. Where 20 people used to apply for a job in a school, now only one or two people may apply. The hon. Gentleman said that he likes local management of schools, but I must advise him that teachers are now learning what it is really like. In addition to the existing teacher shortages, local management of schools is adding to the problems. For example, one school in my constituency was £18,000 short last year and now has to sack either one or two teachers. Often the teachers who are sacked to save money are the most expensive teachers—those who have been teaching for a long time, and the very ones who are so urgently needed if we are to raise standards.
In addition to the teacher shortage that our Select Committee report sought to remedy, unless something is done, we will lose teachers because of LMS. I have heard the Secretary of State trying to explain that away. People who do not understand the issues might accept his explanations, but those of us who do understand know what rubbish the right hon. Gentleman is talking. The teachers are all aware of that—they have all sized him up—yet the right hon. Gentleman still follows his predecessor's footsteps, albeit fairly skilfully. They have done the same thing—they have made our education system into a terrible mess.
The position is worsening every day. Not only is morale lower than ever, but it is getting ever lower. All hon. Members know that that is what is happening, even if some of them try to pretend that it is not. The Government must recognise the growing damage that is being inflicted

on our children's education. Let us be clear about this: it is not their children. One or two Tory Members may send their children to state schools, but——

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: rose——

Mr. Flannery: Be quiet, 
dear.
The Government are inflicting the damage on our children, not their children. They pay £7,000, £8,000 or £9,000 for their kids to go to special schools, yet they take thousands off our children while talking a lot of nonsense. That is what goes on and they know it, and I am saying so. As the shortages worsen, the Government further exacerbate them by LMS.
The poll tax will hit education more than any other area. Education is one of the biggest spenders of what were local rates. Again, it is our children who will be hit. It will cause hundreds of redundancies. It is as though the Government have a death wish for state education which they will work out.
The Minister knows that the Government have imposed a cash limit of £6 million on the IAC's recommendations for this year. The offer is only 7·5 per cent., yet inflation is 9·4 per cent. The Government said that the offer was against a background of the falling rate of inflation. They say that they are coming to grips with it, but it is heading up to 10 per cent. If the offer was low because of a falling rate of inflation, as it is rising will they please give the teachers much more money? The full award would be only 9·3 per cent.—still below the rate of inflation. How can that solve our education problems?
Even to return to the 1988 position, the figure needs to be 13·8 per cent. We have costed this. We do not have to wait for the Government's costings. They are never correct. They do not tell the truth. To bring the figure back to Houghton levels, we need 40 per cent. on top of the present offer. That is how much teachers' salaries have been eroded.
Education cannot thrive in such an atmosphere. It is bound to go downhill. We cannot recruit, retain and motivate teachers with such an appalling lack of insight and in the atmosphere that dominates the Tory party. Despite all the evidence to the Select Committee, the Government continue to believe that teacher shortages are hitting only certain subjects and certain areas. That is untrue. There is a shortage in all areas and all subjects. All six teacher unions met last autumn and gave the lie to that claim, and our Front Bench survey bore them out.
If the crisis in the teaching profession is not to deepen further and endanger our children's education, this Government, who see that their children have plenty of money, must release the necessary funds to make teachers' salaries competitive with those of other professions. The numbers will fall and we will have to offer more money to attract more teachers. The interim advisory committee and the Select Committee both asked for more money. [Interruption.] Has the hon. Member for Sherwood (Mr. Stewart) something wrong with his right hand over there—yon Sherwood forester? I call him a Sherwood forester, but he would tie Robin Hood up and hand him over to the sheriff.
There is no other way to advance the great cause of our children's education. I appeal to the Tory party: if the Lady is not for turning, for God's sake, is there any among you who will turn and give us a decent education system?

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. This is a very short debate, and short speeches are appropriate. I call Mr. John Marshall.

Mr. John Marshall: The London borough of Barnet, which I have the honour to represent and where my children are being educated in voluntarily aided schools, is consistently producing better examination results than any other local education authority in the country.
I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his initiatives—on refining the national curriculum, on pressing ahead with the introduction of city technology colleges and grant-maintained schools—which will introduce variety, choice and flexibility into the education system—and on achieving greater flexibility in teachers' pay. Although I welcome that latter development, I should like the Minister to deal briefly in his winding-up speech with the need for more regional variations in teachers' pay. The Nationwide Anglia survey of house prices for the first quarter of the year shows that the average price of a terraced house in London was £88,470, and the average price of a semi-detached house £100,450. In Yorkshire and Humberside, the average price of a semi was £50,810, and in the northern region it was £49,590.
A teacher in the north of England can expect to obtain a mortgage of perhaps £30,000; a teacher in London has not a hope in hell with a mortgage that size. The average after-tax cost of a £30,000 mortgage is £327 per month, while that of a mortgage of £55,000—which is probably typical for London—is £669 per month, or an extra £85 per week. I ask Ministers to bear that in mind in future: unless regional pay is increased, a new north-south divide will develop. Teachers in the south-east will sell their London homes, making a large capital gain, and move to the north in the knowledge that they can enjoy lower mortgages and a higher standard of life.
We need still more flexibility. My right hon. Friend was educated at St. Andrews university, where the emphasis on market economics was particularly strong. Let me tell him that a shortage of teachers of French, maths and science is no reason to pay more to teachers of Latin or social studies. If teachers of "shortage subjects" are not paid more, the entire curriculum will be put at risk.
The status of the profession is, I feel, in the hands of the profession itself. No one has more faith in the profession as a whole than I have; a small minority, however, is putting the profession's reputation in jeopardy. A few weeks ago, I received a letter from my children's head teacher which said that because of action by the National Association of Schoolmasters/Union of Women Teachers the children would receive no schooling in two days' time. That is disgraceful. It merely aggravates the parents—especially mothers—who are inconvenienced. It interferes irresponsibly with children's education, and gravely damages the image of the profession.
The hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) and others mentioned morale. In one section of the profession, however, morale is extremely high: I refer to grant-maintained schools. My right hon. Friend will remember paying a visit to Hendon school, the first grant-maintained school in London. Towards the end of that visit, a teacher approached him and said, "I am a member of the Labour party." I held my breath, wondering what would happen

next. The teacher went on, "The best thing that has happened to this school has been becoming grant maintained."
Tonight we have heard the Opposition commit themselves to doing away with grant-maintained schools, city technology colleges and the private sector. What would that do for morale in the teaching profession? It would plummet to a new low. But that is what the Labour party stands for: it would do nothing for the education of our children, and nothing for morale in the teaching profession. Its proposed measures would be as productive as the abolition of the grammar schools. The grammar schools, we were told, would he abolished over Lord Wilson's dead body—and we all know what happened to them.

Mr. Matthew Taylor: The background to the debate is the present position in our schools. Some Conservative Members have referred to the professionals in the schools—[Interruption.]—not to mention the professionals in the Press Gallery. I have hardly started, but they are already falling apart up there.
I understand why some Conservative Members should discuss the experience of head teachers and in that context it is important to consider the letters that I received last year from head teachers in my constituency—a rural one with many small schools. Those letters referred to the distress that head teachers experienced in implementing the Government's reforms, and coping with lowered staff morale as well as with their loss of morale because of a feeling of lost status.
Occasionally a series of letters is sent as part of an orchestrated campaign to argue a particular case—often exaggerated to lend it more strength. I therefore visited each school in my constitutency to discover whether the possibility of resignations was real and to discuss the problems experienced.
Conservative Members are not prepared to accept that many teachers—not all—are suffering from low morale. A number of head teachers in my constituency have resigned citing pressure and low morale as their reasons. The Select Committee on Education, Science and Arts has highlighted similar problems affecting the retention and recruitment of teachers. No matter how hard Conservative Members argue that that is not so, it is the reality to which the debate must be addressed. Whether the Government's response has been adequate can be judged by how well they resolve those problems. We must ensure that they are solved so that our children receive a proper standard of education and we have enough teachers in the future to provide an adequate level of education.
Whatever criticisms Conservative Members may make of the teaching profession, it is to them that we entrust the education of our children. It is fundamental therefore to restore to them their negotiating rights. Tonight the Secretary of State has again referred to his intention to restore those rights—not before time, although the blame for that cannot be laid directly at his door. However, on 5 December when the current system for determining pay was extended by a further 12 months the Secretary of State said:
It is necessary for the present arrangements to be in place for one more year."—[Official Report, 5 December 1989; Vol. 163, c. 271.]


Although he has expressed his intention to replace the arrangements, it is rumoured that another extension order will be introduced because a Bill introduced in the next Queen's Speech might not be enacted by 31 March 1991. Can he guarantee that that Bill will be enacted in time to ensure that there will be no repetition of this debate? In the face of international law and the expressed Government intentions, will such a Bill be enacted or are the Government already preparing for a repetition of this debate? I remind the House that the Select Committee said that teachers' negotiating rights should be restored as soon as possible and that new arrangements for determining teachers' pay and conditions of service should be devised to allow the 1987 Act to expire in March 1991 at the latest. The extension of the system that we have already had is deplorable.
It is not true that the Government are implementing the interim advisory committee recommendations because on 1 February the Secretary of State for Education and Science announced that the Government proposed to accept the recommendations but that the introduction of the changes would be phased up to 1 January 1991. As a result, teachers will get increases that are lower than the rate of inflation. There is no point in looking at the result when in the process of reaching that result teachers will be worse off. That is in the face of recruitment, retention, and teacher supply problems. The interim advisory committee recommended not a phased increase but an immediate increase of 8·3 per cent. The Select Committee also said that the Government should implement the interim advisory committee recommendations in full and without delay. The Government are not doing that and that is directly increasing the problems in our schools.
The Government are not properly funding the recommendations. The IAC was given a remit of £600 million for its recommended pay increases. Its recommendation was for £733 million but, by delaying the increase, the Government will have to spend only £621 million this year. However, revenue support to local authorities was worked out on the basis of a pay award costing £600 million and the support grant settlement is not being revised. Once again, local authorities are being given a certain amount of money to cover a pay award ultimately imposed by the Government but are not being given the resources to pay for it. That is outrageous, especially when local authorities are blamed by Ministers for not being able to stay within Government targets.

Mr. Barry Porter: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Taylor: I shall give way in a moment, but before doing so it might be useful to reflect on what the Secretary of State for Education and Science said in a written answer to the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw):
The additional cost in 1990–91 of implementing the IAC's recommendations in the way I have proposed would be £620 million in England and Wales compared with the financial constraint set out in the IAC's remit of £600 million. The difference should not be an appreciable burden for local authorities given the scope that exists for savings across their services."—[Official Report, 7 March 1990; Vol. 168, c. 627.]
That is ridiculous. All hon. Members know about the problems that schools have in finding the resources to introduce the national curriculum, local management of schools and all the other matters.
I defy the Minister to find extra savings. He cannot do it because the whole system is already built on the basis of savings by local government. The Government are not providing funding for the additional incentives recommended in the interim advisory committee report, such as provision for additional flexibility to increase pay, commensurate enhancements and ranges of pay points.
The Government have allowed local authorities no cash to achieve those things and that is completely unacceptable if the Government genuinely believe in what the interim advisory committee is arguing to achieve. Of course, the Government do not genuinely believe in what the IAC seeks to achieve. Teachers will be worse off under the proposals. Local authorities do not have the money to make the system work and once again the Government have managed to achieve a real cut in teachers' pay.

Mr. Barry Porter: Just so that the House may judge the quality of the hon. Gentleman's remarks, can he tell us what percentage of the teaching population in his constituency has resigned over the past year?

Mr. Taylor: I do not have those figures, and nor do the Government. However, not only have I received letters from teachers whom I do not know, saying that they are resigning, but friends of mine have resigned from local authority teaching. These are not mythical creatures. These are real teachers and real professionals who have given up because they do not have the support that they believe they should have from the Government.

Mr. Derek Fatchett: The backcloth to this debate is the same as that of all our education debates—the increasing crisis in our education system. It is known to all parents and teachers, and only Tory Members fail to recognise it. As the Secretary of State's speech showed, Ministers are complacent about the growing problems in our schools. If the Secretary of State wants chapter and verse for that, he has no better source than the evidence prepared for, and submitted by, the Select Committee on Education, Science and Arts, chaired by the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Thornton). That report contains detailed analyses of the teacher shortages, and what that means for the quality of education. Those problems are growing.
The Secretary of State will say that the Government have taken action, such as introducing bursaries for the shortage subjects. However, as the Secretary of State and the Minister of State know, even in the bursary subjects, the Government are failing to reach their target figures for recruitment. For example, in its figures to the Select Committee, the Department predicted that there would be a shortfall of nearly 30 per cent. in the number of technology teachers by the year 1995, yet this year, on the latest available figures for the number of teachers taking up the technology bursary, there is a shortfall on the Government's recruitment targets of nearly 25 per cent. The hon. Member for Sherwood (Mr. Stewart) should not shake his head, because those figures come from the Department.
The shortfall in teacher supply is getting even more acute, and on top of that, as the Select Committee report showed clearly, there is a collapse in teacher morale, a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery) and the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor). It was, almost incidentally, recognised


by one or two Tory Members. That collapse in morale is not surprising. The Government have gone ahead with a whole range of reforms—wrapped in red tape, according to the hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. Pawsey)—that were never based on co-operation and consultation with teachers. They went against the grain of teacher professionalism and only now is the Secretary of State realising that he needs teacher support.
The Government have introduced the local management of schools. Every one of those schemes that the Secretary of State now criticises, he sanctioned. Each one of them is producing problems in schools. That is why, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hillsborough said, we hear stories of teacher redundancies, and threatened teacher redundancies in so many schools.
The order will impose a cut in the living standard of teachers. The Government are presiding over a rate of inflation of 9·4 per cent., and are imposing on teachers a pay increase of 2 per cent. less than that. In other words, in their attempt to deal with the problem of falling morale, the Government are imposing on teachers a further 2 per cent. cut in their living standards. Furthermore, the Government have failed yet again to provide local education authorities with the money to fund the pay increase. Yet again, the Government will force local education authorities to make cuts in education services. Capped authorities will be forced to make cuts and to make teachers redundant. In authorities such as Barnsley and Calderdale the increase in spending is below the rate of inflation, yet the Secretary of State is prepared to take risks with children's education and see teachers made redundant.
The order is inadequate to deal with the problems that are faced by teachers and the education service generally. For that reason, I ask my right hon. and hon. Friends to join me in voting against it.

The Minister of State, Department of Education and Science (Mrs. Angela Rumbold): The debate should really have been about the interim advisory committee's report, which includes some extremely good suggestions and recommendations about teachers' pay. Much of this has been misrepresented by Opposition Members. The majority of rational people outside this place, having read what has been recommended and what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has said, will say that everything that has been suggested is excellent and that the Government were right to accept it.
It was predictable that we would have much rhetoric from Opposition Members. There has been a great deal of gloom and doom and much talking up of a situation within our schools that does not need to be talked about in that way. It does not need to be discussed time and again. Our reforms are working excellently in the schools and we shall be seeing the results, which will undoubtedly benefit our children.
I am concerned by some of the remarks of the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw). I understand that the Labour party's policy review states that any changes made would be as resources allow. Yet tonight we have heard from the hon. Gentleman that any long-distant Labour Administration would give a completely open-ended commitment to the outcome of any sort of teacher negotiations or whatever mechanism that Government

had for settling or negotiating teachers' pay. That does not sit well for the taxpayer in future. Nor does it sit well with remarks that have been made by other members of the Opposition Front Bench.
My hon. Friend the Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey) made an excellent speech. He rightly supported the IAC's report and rightly said also that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State always includes in his remarks the admiration and gratitude that the Government have for the dedicated teaching force throughout the country. We believe that the work that it is doing to implement our reforms will add enormously to the value of education for our children. I can tell my hon. Friend that my right hon. Friend has been working hard to reduce the amount of paper work.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall) referred to the difficulties that are posed by regional variations. The IAC has drawn attention to the matter in its report. There are admirable flexibilities, but I hope that the matter will be further examined in any future negotiations.
It is right to say that the talk about teacher shortages is regional and could become worse. I tell the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery) that only this morning the Labour leader of the Association of County Councils told us that there were no teacher shortages in his county of Nottinghamshire. How does that square with the hon. Gentleman's rather sweeping remarks? It is extremely important to get the facts right.
We need less rhetoric and much more support for our teaching force throughout the country. We need more support from all who talk about education in this country. Above all, we need support for the order, so that we can implement the good increases and the changes and flexibility that the interim advisory committee has given us, to ensure that teachers feel rewarded—as I am sure they will.

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 264, Noes 183.

Division No.226]
[at 11.44 pm


AYES


Adley, Robert
Brazier, Julian


Aitken, Jonathan
Bright, Graham


Alexander, Richard
Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)


Amess, David
Buck, Sir Antony


Amos, Alan
Budgen, Nicholas


Arbuthnot, James
Burns, Simon


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Burt, Alistair


Ashby, David
Butterfill, John


Aspinwall, Jack
Carlisle, John, (Luton N)


Atkins, Robert
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Carrington, Matthew


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Carttiss, Michael


Baldry, Tony
Cash, William


Batiste, Spencer
Channon, Rt Hon Paul


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Chapman, Sydney


Bellingham, Henry
Chope, Christopher


Bendall, Vivian
Churchill, Mr


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)


Body, Sir Richard
Colvin, Michael


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Conway, Derek


Boswell, Tim
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)


Bottomley, Peter
Cope, Rt Hon John


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Cran, James


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Currie, Mrs Edwina


Bowis, John
Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)


Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Day, Stephen






Devlin, Tim
Lawrence, Ivan


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Lee, John (Pendle)


Dover, Den
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)


Dunn, Bob
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Durant, Tony
Lilley, Peter


Dykes, Hugh
Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)


Eggar, Tim
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)
Luce, Rt Hon Richard


Evennett, David
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Fallon, Michael
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)


Fishburn, John Dudley
Maclean, David


Fookes, Dame Janet
McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael


Forman, Nigel
McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Malins, Humfrey


Forth, Eric
Mans, Keith


Fox, Sir Marcus
Maples, John


Franks, Cecil
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Freeman, Roger
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)


French, Douglas
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Gale, Roger
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Mellor, David


Gill, Christopher
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian
Miller, Sir Hal


Glyn, Dr Sir Alan
Mills, Iain


Goodhart, Sir Philip
Miscampbell, Norman


Goodlad, Alastair
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Mitchell, Sir David


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Monro, Sir Hector


Gorst, John
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Gow, Ian
Morris, M (N'hampton S)


Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)
Morrison, Sir Charles


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Moss, Malcolm


Gregory, Conal
Neale, Gerrard


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Nelson, Anthony


Ground, Patrick
Neubert, Michael


Grylls, Michael
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Hague, William
Nicholls, Patrick


Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Norris, Steve


Hampson, Dr Keith
Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley


Hanley, Jeremy
Oppenheim, Phillip


Hannam, John
Page, Richard


Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')
Paice, James


Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)
Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil


Harris, David
Patnick, Irvine


Hawkins, Christopher
Patten, Rt Hon John


Hayes, Jerry
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Hayward, Robert
Pawsey, James


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)
Porter, Barry (Wirral S)


Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)
Porter, David (Waveney)


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Price, Sir David


Hind, Kenneth
Raffan, Keith


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Renton, Rt Hon Tim


Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)
Riddick, Graham


Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)
Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas


Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)
Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)


Hunt, David (Wirral W)
Rossi, Sir Hugh


Hunter, Andrew
Rost, Peter


Irvine, Michael
Rowe, Andrew


Jack, Michael
Rumbold, Mrs Angela


Jackson, Robert
Ryder, Richard


Janman, Tim
Sackville, Hon Tom


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Sainsbury, Hon Tim


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Sayeed, Jonathan


Jones, Robert B (Herts W)
Shaw, David (Dover)


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Key, Robert
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)
Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)


King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Kirkhope, Timothy
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Knapman, Roger
Sims, Roger


Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Knowles, Michael
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Knox, David
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Lang, Ian
Speller, Tony


Latham, Michael
Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)





Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Twinn, Dr Ian


Squire, Robin
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John
Viggers, Peter


Steen, Anthony
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Stern, Michael
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Stevens, Lewis
Walden, George


Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)
Waller, Gary


Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Stradling Thomas, Sir John
Watts, John


Sumberg, David
Wells, Bowen


Summerson, Hugo
Wheeler, Sir John


Tapsell, Sir Peter
Whitney, Ray


Taylor, Ian (Esher)
Widdecombe, Ann


Taylor, John M (Solihull)
Wiggin, Jerry


Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)
Wilshire, David


Temple-Morris, Peter
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)
Winterton, Nicholas


Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)
Wolfson, Mark


Thorne, Neil
Woodcock, Dr. Mike


Thornton, Malcolm
Yeo, Tim


Thurnham, Peter
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Townend, John (Bridlington)



Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Tracey, Richard
Mr. David Lightbown and Mr. Timothy Wood.


Tredinnick, David





NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Dobson, Frank


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
Doran, Frank


Alton, David
Duffy, A. E. P.


Anderson, Donald
Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Evans, John (St Helens N)


Armstrong, Hilary
Fatchett, Derek


Ashton, Joe
Faulds, Andrew


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Barron, Kevin
Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)


Beckett, Margaret
Fisher, Mark


Beggs, Roy
Flannery, Martin


Bell, Stuart
Flynn, Paul


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Foot, Rt Hon Michael


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
Foster, Derek


Bidwell, Sydney
Fraser, John


Blair, Tony
Fyfe, Maria


Blunkett, David
Galloway, George


Boateng, Paul
Garrett, John (Norwich South)


Boyes, Roland
George, Bruce


Bradley, Keith
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John


Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)
Godman, Dr Norman A.


Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
Golding, Mrs Llin


Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)
Gordon, Mildred


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Gould, Bryan


Buckley, George J.
Graham, Thomas


Caborn, Richard
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Callaghan, Jim
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Grocott, Bruce


Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)
Harman, Ms Harriet


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Heal, Mrs Sylvia


Canavan, Dennis
Henderson, Doug


Carr, Michael
Hinchliffe, David


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Home Robertson, John


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Hood, Jimmy


Clay, Bob
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Clelland, David
Howells, Geraint


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)


Cohen, Harry
Hoyle, Doug


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Hughes, John (Coventry NE)


Corbyn, Jeremy
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Cousins, Jim
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Crowther, Stan
Illsley, Eric


Cryer, Bob
Ingram, Adam


Cummings, John
Janner, Greville


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)


Cunningham, Dr John
Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)


Dalyell, Tam
Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil


Darling, Alistair
Leadbitter, Ted


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Lestor, Joan (Eccles)


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Lewis, Terry


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)
Litherland, Robert


Dewar, Donald
Livingstone, Ken


Dixon, Don
Livsey, Richard






Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Reid, Dr John


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Richardson, Jo


Loyden, Eddie
Robertson, George


McAllion, John
Robinson, Geoffrey


McAvoy, Thomas
Rogers, Allan


McCartney, Ian
Rowlands, Ted


Macdonald, Calum A.
Ruddock, Joan


McKelvey, William
Sedgemore, Brian


McLeish, Henry
Sheerman, Barry


McWilliam, John
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Madden, Max
Short, Clare


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Skinner, Dennis


Marek, Dr John
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Smith, C. (Isl'ton &amp; F'bury)


Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)
Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)


Martlew, Eric
Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)


Maxton, John
Snape, Peter


Meacher, Michael
Spearing, Nigel


Meale, Alan
Steinberg, Gerry


Michael, Alun
Stott, Roger


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Straw, Jack


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Morley, Elliot
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)
Turner, Dennis


Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Vaz, Keith


Mowlam, Marjorie
Wallace, James


Murphy, Paul
Walley, Joan


Nellist, Dave
Wareing, Robert N.


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)


O'Brien, William
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


Patchett, Terry
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


Pendry, Tom
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


Pike, Peter L.
Wilson, Brian


Powell, Ray (Ogmore)
Winnick, David


Prescott, John
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Primarolo, Dawn
Worthington, Tony


Quin, Ms Joyce
Wray, Jimmy


Radice, Giles



Randall, Stuart
Tellers for the Noes:


Redmond, Martin
Mr. Allen McKay and Mr. Martyn Jones.


Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved,
That the draft Education (School Teachers' Pay and Conditions) Order 1990, which was laid before this House on 11th May, be approved.

European Community Documents

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 102(5) (Standing Committees on European Community documents).

MOTOR VEHICLE EMISSIONS

That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 4704/90, relating to motor vehicle emissions; and supports the Government in its efforts to secure an agreement on emissions from motor vehicles, taking into account the environmental benefits, the cost to motorists and the need to set a stable standard for industry.—[Mr. Fallon.]

Question agreed to.

Orders of the Day — CALDEY ISLAND BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 90 (Second Reading Committees), That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Question agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Ordered,
That the Bill be committed to a Select Committee of Eight Members, Four to be nominated by the House and Four by the Committee of Selection:
That there shall stand referred to the Select Committee—
(a) any Petition against the Bill presented by being deposited in the Private Bill Office at any time not later than the fourteenth day after this day, and
(b) any Petition which has been presented by being deposited in the Private Bill Office and in which the Petitioners complain of any amendment as proposed in the filled-up Bill or of any matter which has arisen during the progress of the Bill before the said Committee.
being a Petition in which the Petitioners pray to be heard by themselves, their Counsel or Agents:
That if no such Petition as is mentioned in sub-paragraph (a) above is presented, or if all such Petitions are withdrawn before the meeting of the Committee, the order for a committal of the Bill to a Select Committee shall be discharged and the Bill shall be committed to a Standing Committee:
That any Petitioner whose Petition stands referred to the Select Committee shall, subject to the Rules and Orders of the House and to the Prayer of his Petition, be entitled to be heard by himself, his Counsel or Agents upon his Petition provided that it is prepared and signed in conformity with the Rules and Orders of the House, and the Member in charge of the Bill shall be entitled to be heard by his Counsel or Agents in favour of the Bill against that Petition:
That the Committee have power to report from day to day the Minutes of the Evidence taken before them:
That Three be the Quorum of the Committee.—[Mr. Fallon.]

Orders of the Day — MEMBERS' INTERESTS

Ordered,
That Mr. Menzies Campbell be discharged from the Select Committee on Members' Interests and Mr. Andrew Welsh be added to the Committee.—[Mr Fallon.]

Orders of the Day — ESTIMATES

Resolved,
That this House agrees with the Report [22nd May] of the Liaison Committee.—[Mr. Fallon.]

Orders of the Day — PETITION

Alcohol Sales

Dr. Norman A. Godman: I wish to present a petition on behalf of the Reverend E. M. Scott, minister of the Church of Scotland's St. Andrew's church of Port Glasgow, the session clerks and 309 members or adherents of St. Andrew's. It is a petition which I both support and commend to the House.
The petition is as follows:
The humble petition of members or adherents of St. Andrew's church, Port Glasgow, sheweth that they are seriously disturbed and wish to express their deep concern over the possibility of the introduction of legislation which would permit off-sales premises to open on Sundays, and would, in their opinion, further increase the growing problem of alcohol abuse in country.
Wherefore your petitioners pray that your honourable House do note that the under-subscribed persons do hereby protest most vigorously against that section of the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Bill 1990 which would permit the opening of off-sales premises from 12.30 pm to 10 pm on Sundays, or any other hour or hours on Sundays.
And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.

To lie upon the Table.

Orders of the Day — Brymbo Steelworks

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Chapman.]

Dr. John Marek: I am pleased to have been selected for the Adjournment debate, but I am not pleased about my reason for requesting the debate. We are discussing the proposed closure of the Brymbo steelmaking plant with the loss of nearly 1,200 well-paid jobs in a manufacturing industry. Almost 40 per cent. of the products made at the plant are exported.
Brymbo steelworks has a long history. John Wilkinson built a smelting works on the site in the 18th century. The first blast furnace began production in 1798 and since then steelmaking has continued until now. Only 10 years ago, in 1980, a new finishing mill was built at a cost of £48 million—which was a great deal in those days. Jobs have been lost since 1980 when more than 2,000 people were employed, but production and productivity increased and there are now more than 1,100 employees at the plant.
As a result of the Phoenix II negotiations and their conclusion in 1985, a new company, United Engineering Steels, was formed. That company, which was heavily dominated by plant east of the Pennines and managed by people from that area, controlled nearly all engineering steelmaking throughout the United Kingdom. When the new company was set up it decided to spend nearly all the £60 million of Government money that it received on a concast plant at Aldwarke, and we knew at Brymbo that the writing was on the wall. However, now that the closure is imminent, the awful reality of what will happen around Wrexham and the village of Brymbo is before us.
The area will become a complete wasteland as Brymbo depends on the steelworks. The proposed closure would affect not only those employed at the steelworks, but the bus drivers, the shopkeepers and the tradesmen. The viability of the entire community would be wiped out at a stroke. Well-paid jobs would disappear and no one can pretend that any redevelopment could compensate for them. There would be other jobs, but they would not be well paid.
That would be undesirable but understandable in a mixed market economy if the steelworks were making a loss. It could be said that if a country is to get ahead it needs to adapt and invest in new industry and that the steelworks had to close. Social services and counselling would be provided to assist in redeployment. We would all regret that, but we would recognise that it was necessary because our country can survive only if we make trading profits and increase our manufacturing productivity.
However, that is not the case at Brymbo. The plant has not made a loss in any of the past 20 years and I suspect that it did not make a loss in many of the years before that. Last year it made approximately £5 million in profit. Up to 40 per cent. of its production goes to export. It is one of the most profitable steel plants in the United Kingdom, yet it faces closure.
It is not surprising that the United Kingdom is on the decline, that countries such as France are pulling ahead and that Germany is more powerful than us in economic terms when we continually shoot ourselves in the foot by closing down our profitable, export-leading companies.
Why does United Engineering Steels propose to close the plant? It can only be because UES is taking a close,


selfish view of its position and believes that it is easy to enhance its monopoly east of the Pennines. I do not want to say anything against plants east of the Pennines—they need to survive and make profits, and I wish them well—but they should not be making profits at the expense of plants, such as Brymbo, west of the Pennines.
Is the UES management afraid of competition? It says that Brymbo does not have a long-term future, which is why it needs to be closed. If it does not have such a future, there can be no objection to UES selling the company as a going concern, should a buyer be found. That is a critical issue.

The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. David Hunt): indicated assent.

Dr. Marek: I am glad that the Secretary of State nods, although I hope that I have not embarrassed him by pointing that out.
If the plant has no long-term future, it cannot be a threat to UES. If it has a future, why close it? Brymbo can handle orders as small as 1 tonne. Such orders would not be filled by the plants at Aldwarke or elsewhere east of the Pennines, so there would be a loss of market share for this country.
There is customer loyalty to Brymbo. A number of customers prefer steel made not by the concast methods but by the traditional methods deployed at Brymbo in the manufacture of billets. As Mr. Pennington, the former chief executive of UES and now the board member charged with deciding Brymbo's fate, said, instead of potentially taking capacity out of our United Kingdom plants, we should be seeking new markets in Europe and the world. He believes that the right way forward for UES is to do that and to increase production so that full capacity and full utility can be made of the plants in the Sheffield area.
Mr. Pennington said that the market in engineering steels was not going to decrease. The current wisdom in some economic circles is that there is 10 per cent. overcapacity of engineering steels and that there should be contraction, but Mr Pennington does not believe that. His logic does not add up. Instead of taking away our profitable manufacturing capacity, we should expand, look for markets and sell Brymbo as a going concern or perhaps in a joint venture with some other partner. Closing it is not good for Wrexham, Wales or the United Kingdom. I have no doubt about that.
I am pleased that, because of last weekend's events, Wales is now united in marketing Brymbo worldwide. The local councils and my hon. Friends the Members for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones) and for Clwyd, South-West (Mr. Jones) are with me on this issue. I pay tribute to the Secretary of State for sending in the Welsh Development Agency to decide whether Brymbo was viable. The WDA's chairman, Dr. Gwyn Jones, believes that it is. Brymbo is being marketed worldwide to find a potential buyer, and I know that the Secretary of State supports that stance.
We have overcome that hurdle, but there are many more and it would be foolish of me to pretend that I am optimistic about saving the plant. We must find a buyer. I have no expertise in that matter, but I am confident that either Clwyd county council or the WDA, through their contacts and international expertise, will be able to find a buyer. Interest has been shown in taking over the steelworks. After that, there comes the most difficult

hurdle: we must persuade UES that it is not against its interests to sell Brymbo as a going concern. On its record, the plant deserves to survive.
If we add to that the advantage of a steel-producing plant and the benefits that that brings to the people of Wales and in particular to the standard of living of people in Wrexham and consider the advantages for the United Kingdom in that 40 per cent. of its products are exported and thereby help our balance of payments, the case for the retention of steelmaking in Brymbo is unanswerable.
I hope that the Secretary of State for Wales agrees with what I have said. I do not want promises from him tonight because no one has unlimited powers and no one can make promises. However, the Secretay of State has considerable power. I hope that he will do his best and use his influence, if a suitable buyer comes forward, to persuade UES to sell the plant at a fair price so that steelmaking at Brymbo can continue.
I would like the Secretary of State's help. However, more importantly the people of Brymbo and of north-east Wales want it in that endeavour.

Mr. Barry Jones: rose——

Dr. Kim Howells: rose——

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Do the hon. Members who are rising have the consent of the hon. Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek) and of the Secretary of State for Wales?

Dr. Marek: indicated assent.

Mr. David Hunt: indicated assent.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I call Mr. Barry Jones.

Mr. Barry Jones: I am glad that the Secretary of State for Wales is present for this urgent and extraordinary debate. I support 100 per cent. the vigorous efforts of my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek) to assist his beleaguered constituency and the community of Brymbo. I also support 100 per cent. the efforts of the Brymbo steelworkers.
I very much regret that the decision to close the plant was taken by a small board far from the seat of production at Brymbo. That cannot be right and I deeply regret the decision of the UES board. The 1,125 workers, their families and the community face an uncertain future. Those 1,125 jobs are highly skilled and well paid. Most importantly for Wales, they are manufacturing jobs. As my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham said, the jobs are important to Brymbo, to Wales and to Britain and its industrial future. If those jobs are lost, they will not be recreated in Wales. They cannot be reclaimed. Those jobs are vital to the industrial future of Wales.
The board's decision is unacceptable. It represents deskilling and deindustrialisation at a time when we need more skills and more wealth-creating manufacturing industry. Our nation sees its manufacturing capability bleeding away. Brymbo would add to the disaster that we will face if there is any more erosion of our industrial base.
The social impact will be severe. I am concerned about Brymbo, but I am also concerned about Llanfynydd, Ffrith, Cy Mau, Caergwrle, Llay, Hope, Penyffrid, Cefn-y-bedd and Abermorddu in my constituency. Those are small communities, but they all send workers to


Brymbo. The work force earns its daily bread at the plant. It is productive and it creates profit. It has been very loyal to the company and to the industry over many years. The proposed closure is a wretched and unwelcome reward for a fine steelmaking capability.
I congratulate the steelworkers' leaders, Mr. Griffiths, Mr. Jones and Mr. Bostock. The help of the Wrexham Maelor council has been superb. Again I praise the vigorous efforts of my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham.
I blame the Prime Minister and the former Chancellor of the Exchequer. Their economic policies were so wrong that they have led to high interest rates which have destroyed domestic and commercial budgets. Her Majesty's Government bear a heavy responsibility.
The proposed closure will mean more imports of the product that Brymbo will cease to make. That will happen as the years roll by. Also, there will be a steel desert in the north-west and in north Wales. I refer to the former production centres of Workington, Mostyn, Warrington, Manchester, Irlam, Shotton, and, as proposed, Brymbo. That cannot be good for north Wales and it cannot be good for Britain. I am one with my hon. Friend in seeking to stay this execution.
I note from the House of Commons Library that steel strip imports have increased by about 67 per cent. since 1983. In that same period there has been a 103 per cent. increase in stainless steel and alloy imports. I warn that if the jobs go to the wall, there will be more and more imports. One of Britain's greatest problems is a terrifying balance of payments deficit.
The decision by a board that is far away from Brymbo will add to the difficulties of our nation.
I should like the Secretary of State to visit Brymbo. Indeed, I should like him to set up and chair a meeting of his agency, the company, the unions and the local authorities. I should like him to do that urgently, with the objectives of subjecting the company to the severest questioning and enabling the trade unions and councillors to talk to and question the company. Above all else, I ask him to redouble his efforts and, even at this late hour, to use the considerable powers in his armoury to help the people of Brymbo. If he does that, we shall support him.

Mr. Martyn Jones: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek), who has been fighting all along for the jobs in Brymbo, for allowing me a few minutes of his valuable Adjournment debate to make some points about the wider implications of this matter for the people of north Wales.
Many people work in the plants and bring money into my constituency and into that of my hon. Friend and many other hon. Members in north Wales. There are 1,100 well-paid jobs involved, and they are well-paid because the plant is profitable. However, it is being closed when it is profitable. As my hon. Friend said, closing an unprofitable plant is bad enough—it is unpleasant—but closing a profitable plant is obscene. It is the reality of free market Thatcherism taken to a ridiculous extent.
I remind the Secretary of State of an article that appeared in the Daily Post, which states:

On the eve of his first official visit to North Wales, Mr. Hunt said: 'As Secretary of State for Wales my commitment is to all parts of Wales in seeking to spread prosperity everywhere.'
He intends to spend at least one day each week in North Wales.
I am not sure whether he has done that; I hope so. The Secretary of State is further quoted as saying:
Over the coming weeks and months I shall be taking every opportunity to listen and to learn … I want to develop the most positive possible partnership with the Welsh people.

Dr. Kim Howells: Does my hon. Friend agree that the refusal of the owners of Brymbo to allow some formula to emerge—a sell-off, for example—is reflected in many other parts of Welsh industry? For example, in the coal industry, British Coal has refused to contemplate the sale of mines that it proposes to close to companies that had made offers to buy those mines. What is happening——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member must restrict his remarks to the matter before the House.

Dr. Howells: I fear that what is happening in the steel industry at Brymbo, for example, is another case of the way in which decisions that are made elsewhere are marginalising the Welsh economy. Unless we sort this one out—I hope that the Secretary of State will address this matter—the problem will become more urgent and more prevalent——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I hope that the Secretary of State will address the matter that we are considering.

Mr. Jones: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Dr. Howells) for that intervention because, although he strayed a little from the subject, what he described is happening all the time. In fact, it is happening to a factory in my constituency. The James Seddon factory is being closed because of decisions made elsewhere, although it is profitable. My hon. Friend has made a valid point.
I remind the Secretary of State that he is reported as saying that he intends
to ensure that North Wales does not lose out in the Government's drive to lure more job boosting ventures to Wales … Two hundred and ninety five important inward investment projects have come to Wales since the last election and there are many more in the pipeline.
The article also reported that the right hon. Gentleman is
to lead a new effort to boost investment from Japan, Korea and France.
That was reported on 14 May, the very day of the Brymbo announcement. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will take what has been said to heart and that he will not rue his words. If he does not keep Brymbo open, those words will come back to haunt him. I hope that they do not have to.

The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. David Hunt): The importance of Brymbo is demonstrated by the presence in the Chamber tonight of the Minister of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Conwy (Mr. Roberts); my Parliamentary Private Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Mr. Bowis); and myself. I am also


pleased to note the presence of the shadow Secretary of State for Wales, the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones). Brymbo's importance is further demonstrated by the presence of my hon. Friends the Members for Clwyd, North-West (Sir A. Meyer) and for Chipping Barnet (Mr. Chapman), and by my many other hon. Friends who have stated their strong support for the community in Brymbo. I note also the presence of the hon. Members for Wrexham (Dr. Marek), to whom I shall return in a moment, for Clwyd, South-West (Mr. Jones), and for Pontypridd (Dr. Howells), who have both spoken, and for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Livsey). Their presence demonstrates not only the importance of Brymbo but the fact that the issues that we are considering transcend any party political differences that we may have. I very much appreciate the spirit of the way in which all those who are involved in this difficult matter are working together to do their best to ensure a secure future for those employed at Brymbo.
The hon. Member for Wrexham, with the local authorities, the communities and the steelworkers, has taken a positive lead in this. Together with the Welsh Development Agency and United Engineering Steels Ltd., they have all shown a willingness to co-operate which I very much welcome. That applies to all the political parties in the area, including the local Conservative party, led by Owen Patterson and John Myers. All the parties and all parts of the community have come together under the leadership of those involved on behalf of their community.
The hon. Member for Wrexham has already given the House some of the history of Brymbo and has mentioned how United Engineering Steels Ltd. was formed in April 1986 as a company jointly owned by the British Steel Corporation and Guest Keen Nettlefolds. This joint venture, code-named Phoenix II, was launched at a time of severe over-capacity in the United Kingdom engineering steels sector. It was intended that Phoenix II would maximise the level of investment available and enable the company to match international competition. This project involved the Government providing £55 million in funds to BSC to subscribe in preference shares and loan stock in UES on the understanding that UES would undertake further investment. There were no conditions attached to the Government's funding in relation to the location of the investment.
As hon. Members will know, the decision was made in June 1986 by the UES board to invest £60 million in a continuous bloom caster at the Aldewarke plant near Rotherham. I know that great disappointment was felt at the time—which I shared, as a north Waleian—that Brymbo did not receive this investment. However, UES stated that it had no plans to close any of its major works during the following two years. Thereafter, the future of all plants, including the steelworks at Brymbo, was said to depend on market opportunity. Over the ensuing four years, conditions in the steel industry have remained extremely competitive.
Following the announcement by UES on the proposed closure of the Brymbo plant on 14 May, I arranged immediately to meet a delegation led by the hon. Member for Wrexham—I could speak to him that day because I was opening a factory and a new mill in the area—and company representatives. Those meetings took place on 16 May. I listened with great care to the points made by the hon. Gentleman, the local authority, the trade union and community representatives. They stressed, as the hon.

Gentleman has tonight, that the steelworks was profitable and that the work force was loyal and skilful. It had co-operated fully in the management's efforts to improve productivity over the past few years.
I subsequently met, in the afternoon, the company directors who explained their reasons for announcing the intended closure. A number of reasons for their decision were given, including the scope for increased use of capacity at their other plants. They said that significant expenditure would be required at Brymbo to bring it up to standards achieved elsewhere in the group and that this expenditure would add considerably to the costs of continuing to manufacture at Brymbo. To utilise fully what they described as the more modern process routes of other UES plants within the group, the company had reluctantly concluded that Brymbo should be closed. Nevertheless, I took the opportunity to convey to the company the points made forcefully to me earlier by the local representatives.
Following those two meetings, I am pleased to say that it was agreed that the company would hold urgent discussions with the Welsh Development Agency about all the options for the future of the steelworks. I immediately contacted by telephone the chairman of the WDA, Dr. Gwyn Jones, who made arrangements to visit the Brymbo works. He held detailed talks with the company as part of his agency's examination of the plant's viability. Although ultimate decisions about the Brymbo works are a matter for the commercial judgment of its owners, a number of options have already been identified.
Clearly, the ideal solution for the area would be to ensure continuing steelmaking at Brymbo and I have asked the WDA to concentrate on finding such a solution, covering the examination of joint venture operations. Naturally, in addition, the WDA is looking into possible alternatives which include securing employment at the site, first, by attracting an allied industry to the works to use all or part of the plant complex; secondly, by converting the buildings for alternative uses, such as heavy engineering or steel fabrication; and, thirdly, by redeveloping the site totally. Dr. Jones is keeping in close touch with me on all those issues.
Hon. Members may have read press reports saying that various companies have shown an interest in Brymbo for one of the uses mentioned earlier. The House will, of course, appreciate that discussions are at an early stage and it would be unfair of me to raise Members' hopes without foundation by giving details of any negotiations which may eventually prove fruitless. I would, however, like to thank the WDA for its prompt response. It has circulated worldwide the details of the facilities at Brymbo and the opporunties available to all interested companies and to all major banks throughout the world for them to convey to their clients.
The hon. Member for Wrexham asked about grant aid paid to the company. I should be happy to explain the position to him. The last of the four-year conditions on assets at the works will have expired in September 1989. Therefore, there are no continuing conditions. I have little time left to deal with his remaining points.
The WDA intends to be as positive and constructive as possible. I recognise that manufacturing employment in the Wrexham travel-to-work area at 16,600 is some 22 per cent. higher than it was in 1983. In overall terms, Wrexham and the Deeside area is one of the strongest growth areas


in the United Kingdom. Nevertheless, our commitment to north Wales through the vast sums being spent on the A55 includes our commitment to Brymbo.
Let me make it absolutely clear that, whatever the result of all the work now being undertaken, both sides of the House are determined to secure the future of the Brymbo community. Both Brymbo and its surrounding area have

seen a dramatic fall in unemployment in recent years, but that in no way lessens our resolve to help the steel community.
I hope that the House will understand that I can say little about the detailed commercial discussions that are taking place, but I assure hon. Members that no opportunity will be left unexplored in our search for a satisfactory solution.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-nine minutes past Twelve o'clock.